Blog

  • Is there an argument against God?

    My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

    C.S. Lewis

  • The Purpose of Life?

    In my efforts to discover the true meaning of life, I keep thinking about the differences between the principles of atheists and theists. The former professes that there is nothing beyond this and therefore whatever we do we either get punished or rewarded for it in this life but entirely within our control with no consequences beyond death. The latter professes that of everything we do in this life, we’ll reap the rewards or punishment in full in the after-life, whilst also benefiting, or being required to persevere in this life, which ultimately adds to the rewards in the after-life.

    If we are to assume that the atheists are right, I can’t help but wonder how that would play out because there’s so many more questions that arise as to the purpose of life. If we only had this lifetime to worry about, then why restrain ourselves at all? I mean, if I go off the deep end and abuse, molest and destroy anyone and everything at whim, why should I bother about the repercussions if I believe that there is no accountability for a life poorly lived except whatever physical pain, suffering or discomfort is imposed by my fellow man in this lifetime? Why should I entertain the idea of wanting to improve the quality of life of others if any efforts of mine cease to benefit me the moment I die? Why should I care if others live a better life as a result of my efforts? Shouldn’t my efforts then be solely focused on my own gratification since I will only reap the rewards during this lifetime? And since this lifetime will occur only once without any second chances, isn’t it even more critical that I not waste any time in benefiting others unless there’s an inherent benefit for me? This potentially starts a vicious cycle of licentiousness since instant gratification is all we should live for given that we could die at any moment, and given that there would be no account after death.

    Now let’s assume that the theists are right.

    Suddenly my moral compass would be guided by the dangling carrot of a reward that far outstrips my efforts, and makes my sacrifices seem noble. Because now, I can focus on improving the lives of others, treating them with kindness and all those other wholesome ideals, while living in perpetual hope of attaining a state of bliss that will cause me to instantly regret why I didn’t sacrifice more or apply myself in even greater measures during my lifetime. Suddenly, I need to make the most of this lifetime because it is a precursor to a much greater experience. It’s almost as if I’m earning my credentials to lay claim to a specific level of comfort or pleasure in the next life. So I need to follow specific rules and live within specific guidelines that ultimately work towards determining my quality of life in eternity.

    But here’s the real clincher for me. Assuming that the atheists are right, theists would live an equally inconsequential life within the context of the individual, but would inherently be driven to strive more for their fellow man than atheists. To me, the logic dictates that atheism depends on the benevolence of the individual, whereas theism depends on the benevolence of the Creator. Given the state of this world, it’s safe to assume that benevolence in man is a rare commodity, and I call it a commodity because we live in a time when everything has a price. Look at the disparity between the spend and effort to resolve first world problems versus third world problems, and immediately the void of benevolence in man is blatantly obvious. 

    So how does it end? We already protect profit margins more than we protect life, that’s why we pay trillions in bail outs to help those nations that refuse to live within their means, and count every penny and attach inhumane conditions to the contributions we make to feed a starving child, or provide drinking water to the thirsty. The attribute of humanity itself, except by individual choice, is not a prerequisite to live a life as an atheist, whereas it is a precondition to achieve anything meaningful as a theist. So what’s the point? I guess, for me, the point is that if my life were to cease to have meaning beyond my current existence, I would have lived a more fulfilling life as a theist than an atheist, although it can be argued that the selfless efforts of an atheist are potentially more sincere than those of a theist.

    However, judging the intentions of man is impossible, even by the one reflecting on their own intentions, and therefore the measure of sincerity cannot weigh in on this argument. Self-preservation drives most of our motives, and therefore, in the absence of accountability to a greater power, or at least the belief in such, what else would there be to keep us honest and true? 

  • To understand the heart and mind of a person, look not at what he has already achieved, but at what he aspires to do.

    Kahlil Gibran (via ajarfullofdreams)

  • They are the losers, those who make the religion hard and tough. They imperil themselves who enforce tough practices of Islam. They destroy themselves, those who are extremes.

    Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

  • Insomnia

    A few years ago I struggled with insomnia in horrid ways. There were times when I would lie awake in bed staring at the ceiling until 03h00 with nothing and a million things rushing through my head at the same time. Eventually, I’d get out of bed, drive around all the scary neighbourhoods in the middle of the night, since I’d never attempt that during daylight hours or in the early part of the night, and eventually return home at about 05h30 to crash in bed around 06h00, only to wake again at 06h30 to get ready for work.

    This cycle went on for weeks at a time, if not months. The only thing that occasionally helped me at first was warm milk loaded with honey and ginger as a night cap. More recently, chamomile tea helped as well. But I found with chamomile tea I would wake up feeling heavy-limbed and groggy. Quite possibly because I still went to bed too late. 

    But the most effective of all was the tongue exercise that I discovered somewhere along the troubled path. I realised that each time my mind was racing, or I was distracted, my jaw would normally be clenched and my tongue would be pressed against the back of my teeth. This happened even when I was laying in bed trying to sleep. Eventually I would focus on just relaxing my jaw and my tongue, and without realising it, I would quite quickly drift off to sleep. Peacefully as well. 

    The theory in my head goes something like this. Our bodies seem to be naturally inclined to want to express our emotional or intellectual state. Hence some people gesturing unconsciously whilst deep in thought, or others having conversations with themselves, etc. So I figured that instead of trying to clear my thoughts when my mind was cluttered, I should rather focus on relaxing that part of my body that was reacting to the racing thoughts – my tongue. By focusing on relaxing my tongue, in fact not even focusing on it, but rather just allowing it to relax, my thoughts cleared and my mind was able to switch off for long enough to fall asleep. 

    It’s served me well ever since. 

  • The dearth of expectations

    Disappointment is a dampener, a wet blanket, a downer and a doos*. It’s a taunting reminder that despite our best efforts, we live with expectations and not hope. Living selflessly, or at least as selflessly as your ego would allow, is limited only by the lack of reciprocation from those for whom we sacrifice. 

    But those sacrifices are not always overt. Sometimes it’s as subtle as restraining yourself from doing or objecting to something you would otherwise not allow to persist. … this is starting to sound like superfluous bullshit.

    It’s actually simply this. I once again invested in the coaching and mentoring of an individual that assumed the position of entitlement and in a single sentence was able to dismiss every ounce of personal extension that I afforded her in my efforts to encourage her to be more than she thought she was capable of. 

    But the real joke in all this is that I expected anything more!

    *doos – pronounced ‘dwerse’, which is South African slang of Afrikaans origin that refers to the female genitalia in a derogatory manner

  • To be humble is to accept the truth and submit to it even if you heard it from a child or someone who is uneducated or ignorant.

    Al-Fudayl ibn Iyaad (via saliksays)

  • Should we follow our Madhab, or follow the Hadith?

    Knowledge before action & speech: Should we follow our Madhab or Follow the Hadiths? (When they contradict)

    albosnawee:

    If a person is learning fiqh from one of the four madhhabs, then he sees a hadeeth that opposes his madhhab; and so he follows it and leaves his madhhab – then this is recommended, rather it is obligatory upon him when the proof has been made clear to him. This would not be considered as opposing his Imaam that he follows, since they – Abu Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafiee and Ahmad, radiallaahu anhum ajmaeen – were all agreed upon this fundamental principle.… As for the case whereby a person does not have any evidence which opposes the view of the scholars of the madhhab, then we hope that it is permissible to act upon it (the madhhab), since their opinions are better than our own opinions; they took their proofs from the sayings of the Companions and those who came after them. However, it is not essential to declare with certainty (al-jazm) that this is the Shareeah of Allaah and His Messenger, until the proof that is not contradicted in this issue is made clear. This is the action of the Salaf of this Ummah and its scholars – both previous and recent – as well as that which they criticised: namely having bigotted partisanship for particular madhhabs and leaving off following the proof… However, if there becomes clear to him something which necessitates preferring one saying over another; either due to detailed proofs if he knows and understands them, or because he holds one of the two people to be more knowledgeable about this matter and having more piety about what he says, and so he leaves the saying of that one for the saying of the other one – then this is permissible, rather it is obligatory. And there is a text from Imaam Ahmad concerning this.

    Shaykh ul-Islaam Muhammad bin `Abdul-Wahhaab

    Ad-Durur-Saniyyah (4/7).