This article brings together some key reasons, why I am convinced by the rational truth of (a) Existence of God over Atheism or Deism (b) Monotheism over Polytheism (c) Islam over other religious traditions.
WHY I AM NOT AN ATHEIST
I have written in considerable detail about some of the best arguments for God’s existence on this blog, as well as responded to common questions /criticisms regarding the existence of God.
I will therefore, only stress the arguments in this post, which I personally find to be the most intellectually persuasive and rationally robust for the existence of God.
What about Intelligent Design?
Some of the very best arguments for God are challenged by Atheists with exclamations of ‘God of the gaps!’.
I personally find the arguments for intelligent design, such as: irreducible complexity, the miraculous origin of self-replicating matter, the gaps in the fossil record, sudden appearance of complex body plans, the impossibility of coded information via random processes (i.e. DNA), and so on to be incredibly powerful.
Unfortunately in each case, any attempt to engage with these arguments with someone who is sceptical of Theism meets with the firm philosophical belief that all things are possible ‘given enough time‘ and that ‘just because we cannot explain them yet, doesn’t mean ‘God did it’.
In some cases such responses indicate a stubborn resistance to change a firmly held view, in the teeth of contradictory evidence. That is to say, cognitive dissonance.
In other cases, one has to admit that further research could eventually reveal naturalistic mechanisms, for at least some of these phenomena.
For me, these arguments help strengthen an already intellectually robust case for God, they however are not central to the argument.
Case in point: Kaalam Cosmological Argument vs Pseudo-Cosmological speculations
One of the better arguments that succumbs to the philosophical biases of naturalism, is the kaalam cosmological argument.
Whilst, anyone not wedded to materialism might be shocked that such a common-sense based argument could be outright rejected, nonetheless it does show the kind of ‘chinks’ in the armour of Theism that doubt-creators use to misguide young and impressionable minds away from God.
The KC argument simply takes ‘Big Bang’ cosmology and the Mathematical impossibility of an actual infinite series of moments leading to the present, to conclude that the Universe began to exist.
It then makes the rational assertion that anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and thus the Universe must have a cause.
A little reflection shows that given the cause is outside of space-time it must have a will in order to create space-time at a particular moment, otherwise the Universe would be infinite, as would the cause.
This to my mind, is a very strong argument for the existence of a Powerful Being with a free will as the cause of the Universe.
Nonetheless, hyper-atheists will resort to all manner of sophistry , to avoid the obvious conclusions of this brilliant deductive argument.
For instance they will claim that the Universe might not be finite but infinite, citing a few imaginative physicists as support.
Some will argue for a different model of time, or even argue against the application of causality outside our space-time!
The latter argument means that ‘rationalists’ are left arguing that magic is possible as soon as we leave the ‘door’ of this Universe, and somehow, matter suddenly learns obedience as it enters it!
The fact that certain models of physics delve into deeply imaginative and largely untestable ideas about multi-verses, cyclical universe, eternal inflation, models of time and so on, means that the Atheist has plenty of things to amuse himself with, as he ignores the evidence for the existence of God.
The field of Cosmology has increasingly become dominated by untestable, ad-hoc theories, most of which are wildly divorced from any observation or common-sense intuition, simply to support pet theories in the face of contradicting evidence.
It is most unwise to reject an argument with the force of the kalaam, on such a flimsy basis.
Ekeburg describes the current crisis in cosmology, with its contrivances and ad-hoc assumptions ( i.e. mental gymnastics) in lucid terms in this Scientific American article:
The answer lies in a peculiar feature of cosmological physics that is not often remarked. A crucial function of theories such as dark matter, dark energy and inflation—each in its own way tied to the big bang paradigm—is not to describe known empirical phenomena but rather to maintain the mathematical coherence of the framework itself while accounting for discrepant observations. Fundamentally, they are names for something that must exist insofar as the framework is assumed to be universally valid.
…Consider the context of the problem and its history. As a mathematically driven science, cosmological physics is usually thought to be extremely precise. But the cosmos is unlike any scientific subject matter on earth. A theory of the entire universe, based on our own tiny neighborhood as the only known sample of it, requires a lot of simplifying assumptions. When these assumptions are multiplied and stretched across vast distances, the potential for error increases, and this is further compounded by our very limited means of testing.
‘Cosmology Has Some Big Problems’
Atheism is Self-Refuting and Inconsistent
There are some positive arguments for the existence of God , which do not succumb to the Scientism of Atheists.
There are some deductive arguments, that prove rationally that God does exist, regardless of the truth of any scientific theory (be it Eternal Inflation Theory or Evolution) , or any new discoveries in science.
Before coming to these, let us first consider whether Atheism is internally consistent and can provide a rational framework to understand reality?
The answer to both of these questions, is a firm ‘No’.
Here are some reasons why Atheism is self-refuting and inconsistent, therefore cannot be rationally believed:
- Atheism assumes many axioms to be true without evidence such as: that the world is objectively real (not a dream or hallucination), that the laws of nature are consistent, that human minds have the capacity to understand the Universe, that people other than ourselves have conscious experiences (i.e. are not just zombies) and so on. All of these axioms make perfect sense within an axiomatic belief in a Rational Creator who created a rational Universe and gave us rational minds, and conscious selves. None of these should be expected, if there is nothing beyond the Universe to determine its nature, and make it rationally intelligible to us. The Atheist insistence that an axiomatic belief in the existence of God, is not justified and requires absolute evidence, is totally inconsistent with their willingness to believe in all of the above without any evidence whatsoever. If however they apply their ideas consistently, they will end up denying the very existence of reality altogether and undercut the very basis of rationality!
- Atheism is incompatible with understanding truths, including scientific truths. According to most Atheists, there is no ‘controller’ of the physical matter in the brain. No ‘ghost in the machine’. This means all thinking must be involuntary and physically determined. We cannot control the firing of our neurons or determine the course of electro-chemical events in the brain, rather ‘we’ are controlled by them. If this is true, all our knowledge arises from blind physical events in the brain, and may not have any basis in reality. How then do we even know we have a brain? Physicalism undermines the basis for belief in itself and is thus self-refuting.
- Atheism denies the existence of any real moral values. According to the majority of Atheists, all morals are a result of evolutionary development that aided us in survival. However, there is no objective standard which means any given act is truly good or bad, and we might have evolved to regard murder and cannibalism as good and looking after the weak as bad. This view is inconsistent, given that most Atheists do not claim to be nihilists, and many claim to reject religions due to their perceived ‘cruelty’ and lack of equality. Indeed some of them are full of moral indignation and self-righteous rage towards many aspects of religious practices. One cannot have it both ways. Attempts to replace morality with ‘utilitarianism’ also fail spectacularly.
- The general consensus amongst Atheists seems to be that belief in the existence of God and religion developed due to our evolutionary needs. Presumably therefore, religion will itself recede when human survival does not any longer, benefit from it. So why are they so keen to get people to reject religion? Why are they writing books and filling blogs to persuade people that religion is false? Their actions belie their belief that religious belief is simply the product of blind evolutionary processes. If it is not produced by evolution, then they have no explanation for why it exists at all! If it is indeed beneficial to survival, why are they even opposed to it?
- Atheism cannot ground free-will, yet Atheists often advocate personal freedoms. If physical processes determine everything including our thoughts and feelings, our behaviours also cannot be free. If Atheism is true, all actions are performed without free will and thus reward and punishment is moot. Why then don’t Atheists advocate against prison, and argue for the abolition of law?
Atheism cannot be accepted without self-contradiction and is thus logically incoherent.
Theism makes sense of Everything
Belief in God, makes sense of the existence of reason in humans.
It justifies confidence in our cognitive faculties and thus in the reliability of science.
It gives life meaning and value, and provides an objective source of morality.
It is the one axiom that gives meaning to everything.
It is thus at least as epistemically justified to believe in God, axiomatically even without other evidence, as it is to believe that reality is real.
In respect of this, Alvin Platinga has argued persuasively that it is just as rationally warranted to infer God’s existence from the existence of apparent purpose and design in the world (since we can imagine ourselves designing similar things) as it is to believe other human beings have minds, since they act as we do.
We cannot claim it is rational to make an inference from analogy for other minds, and claim otherwise for the existence of God.
Moreover, there is a great deal of good research that confirms that human beings are innately primed to believe in God, the afterlife and mind-body dualism.
Most impressively, children in non-theistic societies show the same natural tendencies towards belief in God as those from more religious societies.
Dr O. Petrovich of Oxford University notes how Japanese children instinctively attribute creation to God despite being from a culture that lacks a belief in a Creator-God:
With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word ‘God’, instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., ‘nobody knows’) or an incorrect response (e.g., ‘by people’). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion — Shinto — doesn’t include creation as an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, ‘We Japanese don’t think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’ So it was wonderful when these children said, ‘Kamisama! God! God made it!’ That was probably the most significant finding
Bryant, R., In the Beginning: An Interview with Olivera Petrovich, Science and Spirit, 1999
This refutes the ‘children are brainwashed into believing in existence of God’ argument of some Atheists, and in fact suggests the opposite!
We are natural believers in God, until we are taught otherwise.
This accords with the Qur’anic statement that God introduced himself to us prior to creation, thereby planting the seed of belief in God in our innate nature or fitrah (Qur’an 7:172 & 30:30).
Even the most vociferous of misotheists such as Richard Dawkins seem to accept that the desire to worship God exists deep within ourselves:
I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator.
Fixed-Point debate with Prof John C. Lennox at the University of Alabama (2007)
If our general beliefs about reality can be considered reliable, the human intuition that we have a soul and the world has a Creator, must be regarded as reliable a priori.
Any argument to the contrary, has a strong burden of proof. Thus the common Atheist refrain that Theists have the burden of proof, is entirely mistaken.
Rather , Atheists must explain how Atheism can be believed , whilst justifying how pre-determined biological events can enable true knowledge, cognitive reliability, objective morality and confidence in science.
That burden remains entirely undischarged.
Proving the Existence of God & Why Deism is False
Nobody should assume from the foregoing discussion that logically powerful, indeed watertight arguments do not exist for God.
There is at least one category of argument, that proves God’s existence beyond reasonable doubt.
The best thing about this argument is that no scientific discovery could over weaken it.
It relies on realities that are universally applicable and recognised by everyone.
It is known as the ‘argument from contingency’ and has a long pedigree, going back to philosophers such as Aristotle, Ibn Sina and St. Thomas Aquinas.
A modern, easy to understand version has also been advanced by Joshua Rasmussen.
To summarise it, in my own words:
It was possible for the Universe to not exist, but it does exist. The potential to exist was actualised, whilst the potential to not exist was not realised. Every particle, law, state might have been one way or another. For instance Planck's constant may have been different. Our solar system might not have existed. The Universe might have collapsed into non-existence aeons ago. The laws of physics keep going when in principle, they could cease to be. The only explanation for one possibility being actualised and others going unrealised is choice. Logically there must be a Being that is pure actuality and contains no unrealised potentials. A Necessary Being who cannot fail to exist, because if they could then they would also require a further cause to actualise them. An infinite number of things that may not have existed (contingent beings) is impossible since something could never actualise a potential, if it didn't already exist. Nothing is just nothing, unless something exists always by its own nature, and is able to actualise the potential into the real.Thus no contingent thing could exist, unless a Necessary Being always existed. Thusthere must be a First Necessary Cause, who chooses what does and does not exist and keeps things in existence. Choice indicates free will. Free will indicates personhood. Thus we can conclude a Personal Being - God - has created every aspect of the Universe and sustains it in existence at every moment.
Science can only explain what exists and how it works. Not why it exists, or does not exist. Only the existence of God solves the puzzle of existence.
Even if the Universe is infinite in age, the argument stands.
Why is there an infinite Universe rather than nothing? What determines the laws, states and properties within it?
As Richard Taylor explained an infinitely old ball hovering over a forest is not explained by it being infinite in age: why is it the way it is and not different? It still requires an ‘actualiser’ regardless of its age.
The same is true of a ‘Multiverse’. Why do any Universes exist, rather than nothing? Multiplying the problem is not going to make the solution any easier.
Nor can the Materialist seek help in Quantum fields or vaccums -why do any particles or laws exist? what chooses their properties and actualises them rather than an infinite number of other possibilities?
Without the existence of God, we should have absolutely nothing in existence.
Deism
The best thing about the Contingency Argument, is that it automatically refutes ‘Deism’.
This can be defined as the belief that God started the creation of the Universe then allowed laws to govern it independently, without any further input.
This retiring Creator, is believed to take no interest in humans or their prayers, and has no desire to grant them revelation and so forth.
The Qur’an rejects this description of God. It specifically refers to how the creation of all things occurs due to God actualising them by choice.
It affirms that no one else has the choice to bring things into being, as He does:
And your Lord creates what He wills and chooses; not for them was the choice.
Al Quran 28:68
The Scripture also refers to how God determines the form and properties of everything (25:2), and it is He alone who sustains the whole of creation in existence:
And of His signs is that the heaven and earth remain by His command…
Al Quran 30:25
The contingency argument accords completely with the Qur’an and shows that at any given moment, God is sustaining the laws of the Universe in existence.
Indeed, He is actively choosing and directing the course of every natural event!
This shows our Lord is directly involved in the smallest details of the world, from how windy it is, to whether a child is born at full term or premature.
Equally the idea of ‘randomness’ in evolution goes out the window. Every single event in nature, only happens with direct command from God.
Such a God, cannot be conceived as being disinterested or aloof from creation.
MONOTHEISM VS POLYTHEISM
Having laid the groundwork with the contingency argument, the case for Monotheism becomes as clear as day:
- Occam’s Razor– There is nothing that cannot be explained by the existence of ONE God. Not ‘ multiplying entities beyond necessity’ means there is no basis to believe in more than one God.
- More than one Necessary Being is impossible – Being ‘Necessary ‘ means having unlimited power. If there are several beings with ‘unlimited’ power, they could cancel out each others will, thus meaning none would have unlimited power. In which case they could not be God. If there were other deities these would just be demi-gods and would depend on the one true God for everything, being contingent and limited beings, most unworthy of worship.This point is actually alluded to in the Qur’an (Surah 17:42).
- The Unity of Creation– from the structure of the atom, to the motions of galaxies, everything works as a unified, inter-connected whole. A single God explains this Unity; multiple deities do not. As the Qur’an notes , if there was more than one god, the Universe would be in a state of discord that would ruin it (21:22). Either each god would try to cancel out the will of the other, or else they would struggle to take control of their own dominions within creation. (23:91)
It is thus apparent that God is One.
Consequently, no religion which preaches otherwise, can be considered as true.
A re-cap:
- Atheism is logically inconsistent and cannot be rationally believed.
- Only belief in God gives us confidence in reason, science and meaning and purpose. True morality and objective knowledge, free thoughts and free actions are impossible unless God exists.
- Belief in God is an innate, basic belief that can be accepted axiomatically and actually provides good reason to trust our other axioms, such as the world being real.
- The contingency argument provides us with certainty that God does exist.
- Deism and Polytheism are also easily excluded as possibilities, based on rational argument.
- God is One, and is actively involved in all aspects of the Universe.
If God is directing everything in the Universe and has instilled the desire to know and worship him within our nature, it seems logical to assume that he will communicate with us to enable this.
Studying the religions that claim to be based on Divine revelation, leads me to the clear truth of Islam, for the reasons given below.
WHY I AM A MUSLIM
Other articles on this blog, detail some of the multiple lines of evidence that convince me of the truth of Islam.
Here I will present a few of these many arguments.
The Oneness of God
As we have just seen, the existence of one God appears rationally justified above Atheism, Deism or Polytheism.
This conclusion leads us to lend greater credence to religions that acknowledge the existence of a single God over many.
When we study the world religions, we find the idea of God’s oneness to be compromised by most faiths that claim to acknowledge it.
Sikhism, for instance, teaches that their human Gurus are ‘one light’ with God and His true embodiment. They are worshipped as God.
Zoroastarians believe in a host of demi-gods as well as an equally powerful Evil God.
Christians believe in three persons within one Godhead. This ‘mystery’ appears rationally insoluble and seems at variance with the single Necessary Being of the contingency argument.
Judaism has the same uncorrupted monotheism as Islam.
However, Judaism is the religion of a particular race, not a potential religious path for all mankind.
Jews generally accept the validity of Muslims as ‘Noahides‘ or Monotheistic believers in the Seven Laws of Noah (alayhisalaam).
Islam is the one universal religion, where no demi-gods or semi-gods are acknowledged.
Pure reason agrees with Islam’s description of one God as being the uncaused cause of everything (As samad, Surah 112), holding all of Creation in existence. Muhammad Asad writes:
This rendering gives no more than an approximate meaning of the term as-samad, which occurs in the Qur’an only once, and is applied to God alone. It comprises the concepts of Primary Cause and eternal, independent Being, combined with the idea that everything existing or conceivable goes back to Him as its source and is therefore, dependent on Him for its beginning as well as for its continued existence.
The Message of the Qur’an
The Qur’an is incomparable
The Qur’an appeared in a context where there was no history of written texts, but oral Arabic poetry was at its zenith.
The Prophet (Peace be upon him) was not a poet and demonstrated no poetic abilities at all. He could not even write or read, being unlearned in the conventional sense.
Suddenly, he presented the Qur’an.
This revelation was not only far more eloquent than the best of Arabic poetry, but was masterfully constructed, whilst not following any of the established norms of Arab poetry (see Abdul Raheem Green’s explanation here)
It was utterly unique in its themes, contexts, modes of expression and breadth of content.
The Qur’an asked the Prophet’s detractors to explain how he could possibly have suddenly produced the greatest literary masterpiece in history, after his fortieth year? :
You (O Prophet) were not able to read any book before this, nor did you write one down with your hand. If you had done so, the followers of falsehood would have had cause to doubt it…
Qur’an 29:48
Say (O Muhammad), “If God had so wished, I would not have recited it to you nor would He have brought it to your knowledge. Indeed, I have spent a whole lifetime among you before it came to me. How can you not use your reason?”
Qur’an 10:16
The Qur’an challenged the great Arab poets to produce a book like it (52:33-34)Then it lessened this challenge to ten chapters (11:13), and finally one chapter (10:37-38). The shortest Surah of the Qur’an is only three lines in length!
They had to present three lines like the Qur’an, Yet, they were so certain of failing that they did not even try!
One of the best poets of the era actually became Muslim and ceased publicly reciting his own compositions given their inferiority to the Qur’an:
`Umar asked Labid, the famous pre-Islamic poet who had embraced Islam, to recite for him some of his poetry, Labid began to recite al-Baqarah. “This is not what I asked you,” `Umar remonstrated. Labid replied: “Well, I have giving up composing poetry after Allah gave me al-Baqarah and aal-`Imraan.
https://quranreflect.com/posts/10470
In recent years certain opponents have sought to parody the Qur’an, in order to meet the challenge. Of course all such attempts are just half-hearted attempts at mockery, and have no literary merit to speak of.
If anyone was in a position to meet the challenge, it was the Arabs at the peak of their poetic excellence in the 7th century. Yet they understood their inability to do so and thus saved themselves embarrassment.
The johnny-come-lately who fancies himself above the great bards of Arabia, is the very epitome of the Dunning – Kruger effect:
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities.
An overview of the Dunning Kruger effect
The Qur’an was revealed in portions over 23 years. It was then compiled in non-chronological order. Any human work of such a character would be disjointed, incoherent and full of internal differences in style and content.
Yet the Qur’an emerges as a deeply structured book, linked by an intricate ring structure.
It appears utterly consistent, and forms a comprehensive whole. It seems to have deeply embedded patterns of numerical precision.
All of these add further layers to the unlikelihood of a human explanation of the Qur’an.
Indeed, that the Qur’an was deemed to be beyond human ability was even conceded by the Pagan Arabs when they resorted to claiming it was ‘magic‘:
And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, those who disbelieve say of the truth when it has come to them, “This is obvious magic“
Qur’an 52:15
Modern Non-Muslim scholars have also remarked about the mystifying challenge of explaining the Qur’an in human terms:
“No one has succeeded [ in meeting the challenge], this is right…I really think that the Qur’an has even brought Western researchers embarrassment, who weren’t able to clarify how suddenly in an environment where there were not any appreciable written text, appeared the Qur’an with its richness of ideas and its magnificent wordings.”
Dr Angelica Neuwrith
As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style….. and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.
Hamilton Gibb
The People of the Book Bear Witness
With no Jews and Christians in Mecca, and mainly hostile tribes in Medina, there appears to be no source that could have accurately conveyed information about the Bible to the Prophet.
Yet so perfectly did the Qur’an recount Biblical narratives, that the Rabbis confirmed what the Prophet reported, often inspite of themselves.
In fact, the Qur’an directed Muslims to ask the People of the Book about the truth of the Qur’an to dispell any doubts (10:94)
This is why the Pagans tried to belittle the Jewish scriptures they saw as ‘supporting’ the Qur’an:
…Did they not disbelieve in that which was given unto Moses of old? They say: Two magics that support each other; and they say: Lo! in both we are disbelievers.
Al Quran 34:33
The people of the Book saw a clear fulfilment of the Biblical prophecies about the coming of an Ishmealite Prophet in the person of Prophet Muhammad.
Thus a number of them bore powerful witness to the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad:
Those to whom We had given the Book before this, believe in the Quran and when it is recited to them, they say: We have believed in it. This is the very truth from our Lord. We were even before this followers of Islam. And when they heard vain and meaningless talk, they refrained from entering an argument, saying: For us are our deeds and for you yours, peace be to you, we do not like the ways of the ignorant.
Al Qur’an 28:48
The Qur’an presented as a clear sign of its truth to the Arab disbelievers , the fact that so many learned ones amongst the Jews and Christians, accepted the Qur’an as true.
And thus We have sent down to you the Qur’an. And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture believe in it.
29:47
And has it not been a sign to them that it is recognized by the scholars of the Children of Israel?
26: 197
It also painted a vivid picture of how the Holy Book moved them to tears of joy, as they knew it was indeed a message from God:
And when they (Christians) hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say: Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses
Qur’an 5:83
Even today, fair minded Jewish scholars note how the Qur’an clarifies and corrects aspects of Biblical scholarship:
So we see the Qur’an confirms the Torah, and clarifies its teachings in plain language where it might have been misunderstood.
Rabbi Ben Abrahamson (Facebook Page)
Given the Prophet’s lack of literacy and access to previous scriptures, his ability to convince the most learned of Torah scholars about the Qur’an cannot be explained away.
In truth, they recognised God’s Prophet as one recognises ones own sons, given the clear prophecies of him in the older Scriptures:
Daniel (pbuh) himself is referred to as “man of delights” which is Ish Hamudot which is the same name as Muhamad. He predicted 7×70 years redemption would come. 490 years + 132 CE when the last Jewish revolt against Rome was crushed = 622 CE.
Rabbi Ben Abrahamson
…Also, in Jewish eschatology, there are three figures that appear at the end of days, Messiah of Joseph,Elijah and Messiah of David. Messiah of Joseph is a
suffering messiah, and when Nehemial ben Hushiel was killed in Jerusalem in 614 CE, many Jews started looking for the prophet Elijah to appear, and those in Arabia found Muhammad.
Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him (the Prophet) as they know their own sons.
Al Qur’an 2:146
Knowing the Unknown
In addition to the Prophet’s stunningly accurate prophecies (see here ), we find many scientific facts alluded to in the Qur’an centuries before humans discovered them.
In addition many historical facts that were unknown in seventh century Arabia were referred to therein.
Take one example: hieroglyphics were undeciphered at this time.
How then did the Qur’an refer to – and refute – the Ancient Egyptian eulogies that ‘heaven sheds tears’ for their royal dead?:
The Qur’an says after the Pharaoh died:
فما بگث عليهم السماء
“THE SKY DID NOT WEEP OVER THEM.” [44:29]
Carl Jung writes:
“A pyramid text describing the dead pharaoh’s fight for supremacy in heaven, says: THE SKY WEEPS…”(Source: “Symbols of Transformation,” C.G.
Jung, Vol. 5, p. 370. Online Link:
https://issuu.com/jihadallam/docs/5_sybmols_and_transformations_coll/370 )
Notice: “THE SKY WEEPS”………
So the Ancient Egyptians did hold this belief of the sky weeping for Pharaohs.
But who could have known?
The knowledge of hieroglyphic writing was lost. It was only deciphered in 1820s with the help of the Rosetta Stone.
Source: Mohmand Afghan
The Miracle of History
The Arab opponents of Islam were utterly defeated, and the Muslims came to rule the whole of Arabia within a mere decade of the Prophet being forced to leave Mecca with a tiny group of followers.
Within a mere thirty years, Islam had routed the Persian Empire and pushed back the Byzantines.
All of this was utterly unlikely from a backward, nomadic and historically insignificant people such as the Arabs.
Yet this amazing turn of events had been clearly predicted by the Qur’an as divine punishment for the rejectors of the Prophet, according to the divine law of itmam ul hujjah.
The detractors of the Prophet still struggle to explain this utterly unforeseeable miracle of history.
In truth, this is a sure sign of the existence of God and the truth of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
The rapidity of the spread of Islam, noticeably through extensive provinces which had long been Christian, is a crucial fact of history.
The sublime rhetoric of the Qur’an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy…and the urgency of the simple message carried, holds the key to the mystery of one of the greatest cataclysms in the history of religion.
When all military, political and economic factors have been exhausted, the religious impulse must still be recognized as the most vital and enduring.
AJ Arberry