Wednesday, 16 May 2012

khuddi ka sir e nihan...


khuddi ka sir e nihan la ilaha illAllah
khuddi hai tegh fisshan la illaha il Allah

Kuddi is the power and manifestation of the self, the secret of this power lies in the realization that power, in its wholeness, lies within one, supreme Ruler. Khuddi seems like self-appraisal from the outside but from inside it is the total downing of the self to the higher, most exotic Self. Therefore only the possessor of khuddi can own extensive powers owing to its connection with the Illah, no other than Allah. In fact khuddi is the sword of its Master and its rage manifests the absolute one world (one universe) order of its supreme Lord.

ye dour apnay Barahim ki talaash mei hai
sanamkadda hai jahan la illaha il Allah

Abraham encountered idols in the temple but today material and glamour have become so compulsive that they dominate on every thought system and every heart. Every heart is indulged in love affairs with all possible 'others', in fact there are idols all around us and not a single Baraheem to smash them and to bring humanity to the la illaha illa.

kia hai tou ne matta e ghroor ka souda
faraib soud o zayan la illaha il Allah

The material world is imagery and the scientist of matter has been abducted by the quality and the quantity. His tries to measure his heart’s secret desires with the same scales of measurement. He thinks that the gains and losses of matter are those of his self, but the self is connect to a seemingly abstract reality, a reality hidden behind the imagery, the losses and gains of the self relate to this invisible yet Absolute Love.


ye maal o daulat e dunya ye rishta o pewand
buttan e waham o gumman la illaha il Allah

The la illaha mysteriously cuts off the ‘self’ from all relations to the ‘others’ and binds it with Itself, then returns the self into relations with the others on Its own grounds. The ideas harboured by the self in its own interpretation, warp it in their own cloak of illusion but the ideas that are made relative to the Absolute Idea are real and enhanced.


kirad hui hai jamman o makkan ki zannari
na hai zamman na makkan la illaha il Allah

(Zannar is a thread worn by Hindu Brahamans on their bellies to get the protection of the spirits). Intellect has become thread bound in the idea of space and time, in the bigger reality there is no time or space. The thought feels secure in this limited system and does not attempt to think beyond; once the thought, strips itself out of this web of space/time, it find itself face to face with the la illaha il Allah.

Ye nagma fasl e gul o lala ka nahein paband
Bahar ho kay khizan la illaha il Allah

The spirit drenched in the intoxication of its Beloved, vibrates at the hidden tunes of nature and dances with the rhythms of the ultimate Truth, all experience is worthwhile for it, as each event takes it closer to reality; joy and grief are not dependent on loss or gain, pleasure or pain but on the remoteness of the lover from its Beloved.  

Aggarcay but hein jammaat ki aastenoon mein
Mujjhay hai hukm e azzan la illaha il Allah

The Illah is the supreme holder of all the threads of happenings, those who strangle with these threads, strangle themselves evermore, at odds with the Command; the self that is deputized by the ultimate Commander has only to spread the word of the command, it is in the security of the command and armies have been readied for his backing; behold all gods hidden in the hearts and the minds will be ultimately smashed by the la illaha il Allah.

aneelashahzad

Tuesday, 15 May 2012

Somalian Pirates And The Local Bandits



Somalian Pirates And The Local Bandits


What a world we are living in, the severed developing-world, as if, we are in the midst of a blustery wind, the sand has entered our eyes and the blades of the wind are to cut us down into paralysis. This is the despair of helplessness, when we see our fellow men being persecuted and find our hands tied in circumstances; we have everything but we can do nothing.



We haven’t forgotten Raymond Davis, from Jan. 2011, who was secretly deported, probably in a Tom-Cruise-CIA-style, when the big crooks: the US government officials told the little crooks: the Pakistani government officials not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat; Mr. Obama stated that, “There’s a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold.”, not stating that the broader principle is: ‘big crooks always have to win’ and that ‘we should forget that he is a CIA operative’, reminding us that they have all the immunity they need under the very-big-crook, ‘the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations’, under which they can kill, conspire against another country, break their laws for the broader principle called the ‘US interests’, which of course are ‘de-mock-racy and freedom for everyone’. So the smaller crooks, under the honourable shadow of Mr. Zardarri and Mr. Gillanni, let their man disappear on grounds that they simply can’t disregard their elders.

Just two months prior to this incident another depressing incident had taken place, a bunch of quite-a-smaller-crooks at the coast of Somalia had seized the Pakistani ship, MV Albedo, abducting the 23 crew members in it. In the last 18 months reports have come of the ordeal faced by the crew, going through severe mental and physical conditions. The families of the crew are constantly appealing to the government and the people of the country to help them in the collection of the ransom money, but as yet nor has a penny fallen from the government’s pocket neither have they endeavoured to negotiate a way out for these men.

The honour and sense of protection one experiences being a party to real big crooks is sensational; in Raymond’s case not only the whole US government machinery but the United Nation itself seemed to be bent on rescuing this man and they did eventually enshroud him in their cape of invisibility. There is also a lot of protection and honour in a poor country like Pakistan, the president and the prime-minister have immunity from law and the common sense of the public, their close relatives have the honour of being granted right-off-able loans of hundreds of millions, their close friends have the protection of being granted from a wide choice of ministries, in case they loose one. But is there any protection for the decent man, who works through his duty to earn a living and he is not a crook. Is there any honour for his family, who are helplessly being seen in tents collecting ransom money? How much is $1.4 million for the face-saving of a whole nation, how does it feel to a body whose wound is left open to bleed, how do you educate a people, if you educate them to bear disgrace.

There is no doubt that this meager amount of money is no big deal for Pakistan’s silent philanthropists, who if awakened just a little bit, will not fail to heal this little rapture. But that is not the question! The question is, is there no room for human compassion in politics, is it only the name of grab and run, and not turn back to see how many have fallen? The question is, how much would Mr. Zardarri or Mr. Gillani be sparing from their personal pocket if it was one of their own sons or a close ally. But surely it is not for our honourable leaders to be dealing with such lowly crooks as the Somalian pirates, that also for the recovery of the sons and fathers of a decent lot.

aneelashahzad

Monday, 7 May 2012

Quran burning




Quran burning and tolerance



Tolerance is a handy word, it is a sophisticated way of saying ‘let everyone do wrong, just shut your eyes and bolt your ears, if you don’t like what’s going on around you’.
Has the west not spent the last two centuries or more boosting upon the world how it is culturally elevated, verbally sophisticated and civilized to such degrees that it is rendered imperative upon it to reach out to the whole humanity, lying bare in misery, disgrace and paganism, to deliver them into this light of institutionalized mannerism and the scientific discourse. Do they not, owing to their highly successful civil-lization, impend upon the barbaric others, to follow their thoughtful, respectful, refined ways of life? Is it not true that civilization begins when two people decide to live together, share space, respect each other’s wants, beliefs and mannerisms; is harshness, disrespect, abuse and bully not the end of civilization; do they not tear the two people apart. On what standards can the west plea that freedom of expression allows disrespect, when they themselves want to be respected in every possibility of the word, all around the globe, unquestioned.

The standard is set in the bible, their supposedly revered but practically forsaken book that overburdens them with its weight of irrationality so as to turn them, the proclaimed civilized, ferocious and barbaric. The standard was set when they filled their own space of reverence with filth and disrespect. The standard had been laid down when less than two millennia back they started converting the revered David into the naked despot whose favorite sport is killing, the revered Solomon into the playboy man-of-the–bed and when they had the revered Lot sit down with his own daughters. They were slowly turned into a people for whom godliness would be another name for shameless tyranny, they were supposed to believe in a book, that was originally edited to rule a pagan majority; but when in time the pagans learned to read and write, they found themselves under the espoused shadows of darkness, they had nothing but disgust for what they thought was God. So, as the rudely west grew up, it explained to itself that all that is divinely revealed is falsehood and all that can be sought empirically is truth-hood; religion is for them the root of all evil, it is the creator of the church, that has been accursing man into all devilish detours. In extreme generalization the humane-west vehemently rushes to the realization that all divine books are compulsorily bad and are the deep-trenched reason for the misery of all humanity; the proof they take is their apparent success scored by secularizing belief and believing in the empirical. So when they burn the Quran, in their self-perception, they are doing a good to humanity.
As much as the western thought was trained to analyze, dissect, experiment and find the truth by connecting pieces of the riddles found in nature and not rely on their hunch, the more they were affirmed in their belief against religion. All their arguments start with ‘because religion is false’ and none with ‘if religion was true’, this is not a scientific attitude, this is a blind belief and this very blind belief leads our self-proclaimed higher genera of the west, into repeated psychopathic outbursts in the grief of the downcast others.

Blind to see the light of true wisdom that illuminates the souls of millions and sets into harmony and peace many millions more; blind to be able to read through simple articulation of profound truth; blind to feel the love and respect the Quran gives to all the revered prophets and to all humanity. Respect that binds humans into humanity, gives it the space to civilize, the space of peace that gives man a chance to recline and mediate into the higher perspectives of life. This is what the Quran brings into the life of its followers and this is why only after the advent of this book humanity finally got the repose to lend itself to scientific inquiry and philosophize. Muslims are taught from childhood to respect not only the Quran and the Prophet, whom it was revealed upon, but to respect all prophets and all Holy Scripture, especially the Torah and the Bible; they are revered scriptures from God; only the Quran does not insist on irrationally following their distorted forms.

Here are a few stances from the Book that they burn, and how it trains its followers to reconcile with scripture:

‘He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.’ (3:3)

‘We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light…’ (5:44)

‘If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet.’ (5:66)

‘We gave unto Moses the Scripture, and We appointed it a guidance for the children of Israel…’ (17:2)
‘… and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him.’ (57:27)

Yet we find, in the wild-wild-west, the freedom and will to disgrace and defile scripture, becoming the vogue of the day; are we witnessing a civilized gesture of a composed society or vile spew of arrogant egoists; is the sink-hole for humanity that falls it back to the age of barbarism appearing in the whiter continents. In the vanity of their technological advances, they have already forsaken cloths, family and marriage, the next logical step to savagery was outright slander and physical victimization; which they show as they kill, plunder and enslave humanity round the globe; which they show when they blasphemies and burn what is revered by others.

The Muslims are weary of the reality that it is only their Book, that is being burnt, not the Nikayas or Sutras of the Buddists or the Vedas and Puranas of the Hindus or the Avestas of the Zorastrians or any of the thousands of revered scripture associated with the thousands of proclaimed religions; not the Bible or the Torah. Even the LaVeyan’s ‘Satanic bible’ is held with due respect, owing to the freedom of thought and personal space of others. But when it comes to Islam, it’s Prophet or its Book, the private space is cut open, we have no right to the freedom of thought and choice, we are exiled from ‘good is what you think is good’, our damnation is international and our irritation is the laughing stock on-air.

They preach to us: ‘we don’t mind if anyone calls Jesus or Moses bad, learn to be tolerant’… we say ‘tolerance for the vile is not our religion’, we will never call them bad, we just can’t, we love all the good men of God, we cannot come down to your uncivilized manners, we have been trained to be very considerate in this matter:

‘Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah in enmity, without knowledge…’ (6:108)

aneelashahzad

Sunday, 6 May 2012

SHUKKAR




SHUKKAR:

The Arabic word 'shukkar' is actually same as sugar (shakkr).
its literal meaning is not only to thank, praise and speak largely of
but also the saps of the fruit becoming full of their sugar or milk.

"Remember Me , I will remember you, be shukkar to Me and don't bare the saps ( of your hearts).” (2:152)

Allah asks us to make our hearts and tongues sappy and sugary for Him, the words in which we remember Him should be full of sweetness, flattery, humility, tears and should be ozzing out with the honey of love; lengthen the time to make connections with the King of kings.

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

har ceez hai mahv e


har ceez hai mahv e
Iqbal

har ceez hai mahv e kud numaaii
har zarra saheed e kibriaii (biggness)

Everything in the universe, every particle, seemingly lying dormant in the vast oceans of wajjood (being) is showing off itself, why? It wants to be loved, to be appreciated. Every atom, every electron is connected; dont know what connection it is; call it love. Everything wants to be seen, recognized in the great picture of reality and wants to witness the greatness; by showing off itself, it is showing off the ultimate reality, and making connection with the Ultimate, obscured behind the glass of wajood.

Bey zauk e namood zindaggi maut
Taameer e khuddi mein hai Khuddai

If the self does not have the fire of being, becoming and be-knowing, then this dull and inert state of passiveness is equivalent  to death, the soul kindles fire in the heart to show off its beauty to the soul-giver; showing off to Him; telling Him that he can be like Him.

Rai zoor e khuddi say parbat
parbat zaaf khuddi say rai

Physical might and qualities do not stand in the eyes of the Ultimate Seer, He sees right through the material and weighs only the strength of the soul, if it is strong with the knowledge of its Lord, the resultant of the soul is magnified and the sun and the stars bow down to it.

taray aawara o kam aameez(rarely encounter one another)
taqdeer e wajjood hai juddaii

though everything is so close and connected, yet everything is all alone and kind of lost, everything needs to find itself while slowly drifting in solitary fire of love.

wo pechlay pehr ka zard roo chand
bay raz o niaz e aashanaii

once the moon entered the latter hours of the night, it became pale with the thought that the earth dwellers have gone to sleep, nobody is looking at it.

Teree qandeel hai tera dil
tou aap apni rooshanaai

The light lit in the heart is going to lead the way, the external will get its light from within; the holder of khuddi will depend upon no one but itself to find its beloved Truth.

ik Tuo hai kay haq hai iss jahan mein
baqi hai namood e seemiaii (mercury)

who can see everyone,who can give total appreciation to each, who is worth your seeing, the perfect one, you want to love, the only truth you long for is He, everything else is a reflection of colours on a reality which turns intangible every time you try to comprehend it. He is' the connection', He is real, everything else is unreal.

hain akda kusha khar e sehra
kam kar gilla e barhanna pai

the thorns that pierce the feet of the lover, nourish his belief and add flame to the fire of the soul; they open the secrets of the self to his conscience, they are the valuable provisions of the journey.

aneelashahzad

The Two Nation Theory




The Two Nation Theory

Does the historical context of the two nation theory start with Sir Syed and end at Jinnah, does the ideology of Pakistan stand on a quick-sand of fallible men? Today there is confusion in the minds of Pakistanis as to why this country was made and whether or not is it dispensable.

The modern scientific historians have become habitual like their scientist friends to dissect repeatedly the object under observation, until it gets to its tiniest possible form. While doing so they face the danger of losing touch with the big picture. Like the biologist who wanted to study the nature of the cell but every time he brought it under his microscope, it was dead, as it had been cut off from the whole. This is the gift of the scientific way of inquiry, by which, inevitably, the atom takes precedence over the heap of matter, the individual over the nation and the event over the movement; a study of lifeless trans-sections, taken out and away from the context of the whole.

This is exactly what the modern scientific historians are doing; they are taking the perception of their readers from Millat to state to province to ethnicity; from faith to culture to language to the local festival. So that at every step of introverting one looses more and more the grip of the whole. Specialization in a ‘particular’ makes the mind numb of the subject in whole; surgical scrutiny stales the vibrance of a lively nation.

The history, religion and identity of a Muslim nation starts from Adam. Anyone who has doubt in the existence of Adam is cut off from the Muslim nation, anyone who espouses the Darwinian account of man’s arrival on earth, is cut off from the Muslim nation. The history, religion and identity of the Muslim nation goes back to Noah and Hud, anyone who is inclined to take them as fictional characters of a fairytale is cut off from the Muslim nation.

What religion, do these great men, called the prophets, represent? It appears to be, that there have always been two religions in the history of humanity, striving side by side; one religion based on one God and truth and the other religion based on more gods and falsehood. One religion based on equality under one God and one, same law for all, for which the prophets usually fought all their lives and were adversely opposed, especially by the chieftains/kings and by the community in general; and the other religion based on more, lesser gods that have the capacity of being manipulated, by man-gods therefore allowing a system of hierarchy, wherein the populace is again trapped into subjugation.

This other more permanently prevailing religion, is the same one as we have all around the world today, a religion that allows commixing of other ideas with the idea of God; all type of religion that eventually allows man to be his own god, that allows him to decide what is to be done, what is right and wrong; where man has been given the grace to do as he will and consider his own choice the highest good; any type of religion that makes man the intelligent one and makes God the passive, vague, cosmic, thin air type who has no say in anything and awaits man to unwind all his anomalies by himself, while He lovingly passes his smile onto him from a remote place; any religion that promotes fetishism (associating power to an object/person) or idol-worship or shamanism as approaches towards God, thereby allowing intermediate worship and intercession. All these types of belief systems, where God cannot give direct orders, or His orders have been blotched and can stand no more, these are all the different types falling in one category: falsehood. These religions are the religions of the status-co, people in charge of power and resources all over the world allow such religions to prevail because all of them have the big loop-hole that allows the king-class, the super-class to flourish, so all these systems supplement each other, can live together in peace, can secularize.

Then what is this one true religion, espoused by all prophets, the religion of the minority, based on one, lone God? And in its most modern form represented by His specific command, the Quran and the explanatory life of Muhammad; how is it different? It is different because of its unalterable one-word agenda, because its word is infallible, because it considers man to possess knowledge and agency but not above the knowledge and agency of God, because it has no loop-holes, for man to manipulate the will and ideals of other men. This lonely religion also has the ability to secularize the whole humanity under it, but under one God, with equality for all, with constant return of resources to the people, with a way of life that puts limits on free-will and free-action so that all can live peacefully, in land and in the heart.

This religion brings the most dynamic message, the message for man to face God by the face, without intercession, it joins the strings of man’s soul with the strings that go through the vastness of the universe, the strings that weave a multi-dimensional web that connects everything with everything and bind that everything with an Omnipresent. Therefore this message is opposed to all kinds of status-co, even those that prevail inside Muslims societies, all thing that make hierarchy between God and man, anything that divides the one-word agenda into different words, anything that loses the unity under one God and His one command, anything that creates loop-holes for Pharaoh-ism to return; are the things that differentiate the two nations of humanity.

The Two Nation Theory therefore is the separation of the Muslim minority from the prevailing status-quo of the world or of any country, that prevailing air, might call itself modern, liberal and progressive, but inwardly it strives for letting down humanity as a whole, converting it into a passive workforce serving the man-gods. The Muslim minority is of the intellect, the knowledgeable; but knowledge here in the eyes of God is not scientific knowledge, that breaks and kills the whole, but it is knowledge that can bind the bits and pieces into a whole picture, the true picture, which the Creator has painted in the clouds and the stars, in the oceans and the fish, in the mountains and the trees, in the galaxies of the far and the web and walls of the universe, a picture most implausible to the skeptic but most plausible to the common sense of humanity.

The Two Nation Theory is an alarm for the upholders of faith; you are a separate nation as long as you are faithful to your one God, His Book and His last Prophet not because this last prophet is the only one we love but because he is the last man to hold the beacon of light, the light that is to remain the last hope of purity onto eternity; we, who uphold them, uphold that light amidst the darkness, a light that is to pass on, to every coming generation, we are the hope of the last hope.

But no, religion is not kept just by the most knowledgeable, it is kept by a whole people, a people with a mixed intellect, a mixed level of empathy and reverence, but who are common in one thing, that they all see the one beautiful picture, the one beautiful worldview, in which all things come from and return to One source, in which the balance of judgment by which God judges man on his every thought, is set deep inside man’s soul, in which nothing is impossible because the God we believe in is so immensely full of possibilities, a worldview in which we are rich because our King and His kingdom is rich and where we don’t have to collect because our Provider is so full of providence.

But the moment you give-up to the status-co, you are one of them, you are one of those who are stuck in the oppressed-oppressor system; the oppressors, for whom knowledge is accumulation of data translated into technology, which again become a means to control economy and politics. For whom progress means numbing down the morals to abjectness and at parallel enhancing physical pleasure to levels such that in all its possibilities, it becomes a lucrative venture, hence the expansion of market into horizons unimaginable in a truly ethical society. For whom free-will means, to kill the subjective and to curse the objective; liberty means to eschew honour and virtue; and for whom the new world is an order free of God and godliness, where man, the oppressed, is alone and segregated to fight his defense against the fetish he has recently learned to adore, the cult of the multi-nationals, the gods of the reserves of gold and silver, who with their high–tech psycho-control and the esteemed knowledge-amplification have earned the right to be worshiped as humanities long awaited glory. Thus, happily, bows down, in subjugation, the whole of humanity, onto the centers of excellence, in shame and humility of not having the same level of intellect and values, not realizing that they themselves are the ones who feed these temples of greed with their own sweat and blood, not realizing that in leaving the one God who fed them from the land and the sky, Who makes them owners of what they have; they have given themselves onto the mercy of the vicious greed of covert super-classes on top of all physically and monetarily gain-able heights.

But if you are the one voice that stands against this structure of the society, against this domain of ungodliness that gashes its bloody claws into the whole range of humanity, and if you are the flag-bearer of the One-God-order and you subjugate onto the wisdom and power of God; if you are ready to act upon His command because you trust upon His goodness; if you are willing to believe on Him unquestioned because all the evidence around you is enough to make sense to you; He is scientifically poised, He is spiritually over-whelming, He is artistically exquisite, He is the giver of the law of balance and the morals of the high; then you are the Muslim nation.

So the Muslim nation was always and will always be at odds with the majority, it will not be the ruling elite, that corrupts and plunders, it is not those masses who allow themselves to be used and plundered and degraded; it is those who rebel, who radicalize, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of justice but really for the sake of God, because they love Him so much, because He give them the courage, the dignity, the direction and the simple formulas to act upon, that would deliver them and all related to them from oppression, deception and false direction.

So! Is a nation defined by the population confined in the boundaries of a country, is a nation defined by the way it stitches its cloths, or the tunes it celebrates its joys on. Is a nation defined by the languages it uses as tools to express itself or is it defined by the message it is trying to convey. Is a nation defined by the rituals it practices or by the gods/God, to whom it is presenting its rituals. Is a nation described by individuals like Sir Syed, Jinnah, Iqbal; they were not prophets you can find faults in them; or by singular events, like was the Pakistan Resolution passes on the 23rd of march or the night before, is this not absurd. Nations are defined by what ideals and goals they stood for and how much of them they have achieved, not by the stones that had to be removed along the way.

A nation will be identified by the ideology it holds, even if only one man stands behind that ideology. A nation will eventually be defined by the person of Abraham:

“verily Abraham was a nation (ummatan) in himself, obedient to Allah, turned away from all others and not became he of those who make partners with Him.” (16:120)


aneelashahzad

The Problem Of Evil




The Problem Of Evil
The age old problem of evil is in fact a case for atheism, it is a theorem designed to eliminate God. It has proved to be a shovel in the hands of the atheist, by means of which, he is enabled to strike at the roots of belief and baffle the untrained target into confusion and a willingness to shake away his existing worldview, that had previously kept him in peace and content.

It is based on fallacy, one that can temporally grip the common sense, that if God is all-good then why would He allow evil to prevail in man’s world. It does not allow any of the numerous possibilities, why He actually would, but simply imposes on God that He has to eliminate evil, or we won’t believe in Him; it is also the same as asking for the miracle, ‘if He wants to win us, He will have to show’. The theorem simply does not take into account the need of ‘purpose’, the need of ‘accountability’, the ‘perfection of the machine’ and the ‘consequences of free-will’. Although the religious communities of the west have tried their hardest to repair the damage this theory brings to the institution of belief, but as yet, have done it in a sorry way. All their theodicies have not been able to heal this constantly bleeding rapture in the bridge between the heart and the mind.

Let us observe the problem afresh; the age-old premises of the theory go like this:
1. An omnipotent being would have the power to eliminate all evil.
2. An omniscient being would know how to eliminate all evil.
3. An omnibenevolent being would want for there to be no evil.
4. Evil exists.
5. God is an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent being.
6. If an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being existed, it would eliminate all evil.
7. If God existed, evil would not exist.
8. So, God does not exist.

But there are some problems with this ‘problem of evil’, let’s observe what they are. Firstly, the theorem is put in a absolute- closed way, wherein the question and the answer complement one another and the theorem demands this specific way of thinking as if there were no premises left out and as if all logic has been covered. Thus being able to appeal to the common sense of the untrained mind as to all-good equals all-good, end of case, case closed.

The three terms omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent are presented as a liability over God that are to eventually lay Him down. It is presumed that the thinker will take omnipotence as a power that can and must destroy itself, omniscient as knowledge that can construct but at the same time can and must deconstruct what it makes, and benevolence means letting evil get away with everything, while He interferes with every single law of nature, running to save this and save that.

The counter argument is that if God is omnipotent, should it not imply that He should have made a system absolutely perfect, with no loop-hole, in which laws connect every single entity with the other, so that there is no question of His absence or presence, wherein He would be both absent and present all the time. Would such a system not demand absoluteness? Wherein, the fault of a single speck of dirt could set the whole system wrong, therefore everything from the tiniest to the heaviest has to be in measure and proportion. Then if man is to be given free-will, interference, an option to either go by the laws of this humungous machine of nature or go against it; If so, what are to be the consequences, the atheist might say they should be negligible, but the Creator-Scientist knows what disaster this can hold, He knows how one silly mistake on part of this unversed holder of free-will could annihilate the whole system. So who is the source of evil here, the perfect system, the God who made it or the free-will holder? Does omnipotence not demand of God to make the free-will equally capable of doing the right and the wrong, fully capable to understand the secret code-word of success, and to deal the misapprehensions with severity on account of its potential destruction, would all that not be just fair.

What does omniscience demand of God, that He should apologize to the people for the evil He has made, for, evil does exist! Or does it demand of Him that in order to prove at all that He exists He will have to nullify every effect of the evil that the atheist commits or is committed on him or else He will be automatically proven non-existent on account of His naivety. Or does omniscience demand that an Entity that has all knowledge of the working of a working system is bound to act to the pleasure of one of the working parts, or should the one mischievous part be a subject of constant correction, rehabilitation and reminder.

Omnibenevolence similarly demands of God that He should not let the corruptor go away unpunished, but the question is, would He let the crimes of one become punishment of the other, is that fair? Or, is that the fairest thing to do, considering the wholesomeness of the universal working system; from the high where God must be, is it not fair to take the whole body of humanity as one and taken to trial as a whole for its crime against the plant kingdom or the animal kingdom or the geography of the earth, in that case the punishment will go to the whole body of mankind and each part will suffer in one way or another; coming down from there should not the crime of one nation against the other be rewarded as repercussions to that whole nation. Should that not be the way God would look at things i.e. outside in. Then, if a society commits a corruption by breaking the moral or bodily laws set inside the very nature and physic of mankind, would not the backlash come right upon this society, also when, corruption never end in its own circle but crosses its own boundaries entering into others on all sides like waves. So if one man sets a fire in the woods, he does not only harm his own livelihood, he is disrupting the whole ecosystem that is shared by all. This one act of lighting a matchstick, might have had a baby burn in its fire, and several households burnt to desolation, the economy of whole sectors of workforce might have gone extinguished, the green house gases would have grown higher, the air we all breath would have gone polluted; that is how cruel and big this little act of crime is. It is like the dominos; you flip one card and down come the whole line of events. This is the free-will, men so much cherish and contend to use in their own willing, to the extent that they would not cease from willing God out of their worldview. But this free will has to have its consequences, it cannot be willed inside the mind, while all the external, real world goes on perfectly the way it was going on before this willing, that could be a possibility but it would not be really an act of free-will unless it could exercise itself fully inside-out of its body to wherever its five senses can operate. Unless the experiment is complete, the hypothesis cannot be rendered true or false. Unless the free will is executed it will not be free. And its very execution is the coming out of its consequences; barricading the effects is equivalent to nullifying the cause. Therefore the wrongs that come upon mankind are of his own doings, a father’s crime will come onto his son because that’s how far-reaching that crime is, bad eating habits will come as irreversible illnesses in the babies because that is what the parents have inflicted upon their coming generations.

Another big problem in the ‘problem of evil’ is that its proponents have never come up decisively upon what ‘evil’ really is. This points, to the severe fragility, upon which the argument stands. Some schools of thought assert that evil is ‘human sufferings’, some say it is the ‘natural disasters’, some plea that ‘immorality’ is real evil and others propound that it is ‘sin’ which is the real evil. But all these types of evils turn out to be relative, it is difficult to identify them definitely. For instance, many human sufferings bring about desirous virtues, which would not have accrued without those sufferings. Many natural disasters become basis for further growth and balancing of nature. Whereas, the terms immorality and sin are subject to the evolution of human thought and cultural differences respectively.

So, how to have a definite definition of evil and will that definition submit to the ‘problem of evil’? According to the thesis presented above, evil is all that goes against the working of the universal working-system. But surely man does not possess the intricate knowledge whereby he would know when and where he is disrupting the big system. Neither God the all-knowing has accessorized man with such big a brains that would accommodate all that knowledge. But one thing is clear that man being the only holder of free-will in God’s perfectly working creation of a universe, is the only potential source of evil. That doesn’t say that man is essentially evil, no he is not, but he’s got a gun in his hands, so he better guard his sanity; with power comes responsibility. So, the other logical possibility was to make a simple code that is acceptable to the simple mind; like you would only expect the horse to do what it can do and the bullock to do what it can do, you would communicate with it in the language it understands. So too God would expect man to understand and act upon what fitted in his framework of intelligibility; ‘don’t lie’ He would ask of him, because that’s understandable, and that signal is to be integrated in the big web of happenings of the whole system. The given code will match the hidden code, that was the preplan; that was the way the system was laid down. Therefore negation of moral values that appeal to the infrastructure of the thought can be called evil, but we just found that they are subject to change, yes they are, unless they can be dealt with in more generalized ways and unless somehow affirmed by foreign agency. But again the infrastructure of man’s thought system has two extremes, at one end it wants petty details and at the other end it wants the most generalized statement of all. God has made these extremes for purpose; the end where men seek detail, logic and lengths of meticulous indulgence is for an extra-ordinary minority that espouses the values of critical thinking and philosophizing. But the most generalized statements of reality are for the majority of the kind, they are the beauty of the whole canvas of the stars, the mountains, the clouds and the flowers, that the all will see and cherish, all will not turn over every leaf to find what dirt lies beneath it, they will just say, ‘who has made this beautiful earth’, so the generalized form of knowledge is the one which is the most shared one, the most intelligible and therefore the most important. So, what is the most generalized statement of reality and truth, it is the simple assertion that, ‘I am your God, obey Me and you will succeed, disobey Me and you will be doomed’. This simple statement is the potential code that can fit in all situations, answer all queries and connect the small, the single with the big, the every, the whole and the One. Therefore, it is defined! Evil is the negation of this most general law of nature, breaking this law will inevitably make the dominos of events fall destructed, whereby the good will also be wasted in the sway of the bad. And affirmation of this universal generalization will mend all bad into the good, by virtue of the self-reconstructing, correcting forces complement in nature.

Lastly I would like to present the notorious case of the ‘lightening in the jungle’ which would ignite the fire and a baby fawn that would get trapped in it, burn to death, suffering in the event long hours perhaps days of painful agony, why did God let that happen, why did He remain a spectator, why did He not show the moral, that even a man with average morals would have shown?

This case is something of the ‘appeal to pity’ type of thing, the thinker is forced into a situation where he would surely feel pity for the fawn, and while in the moment of pity, he is told that God could have stopped this and He did not! But he is not told, where this incident really happened? For in real time situation, if there is a case where a man is observing such an incident, the moral to save the fawn would automatically fall on the man-observer. Even if not so, the matter between an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, who has commit Himself to mercy and the dying fawn or the burning baby, is not required to be judged by man, rather only man is to be judged by God, therefore God can and most probably would have acted His promised mercy, by interference, miraculously, but without letting the tread of events getting disrupted, thus man would have no means to detect what has gone between the fawn and God.

To conclude, I would like to assert, the Quranic stance, however bold, for a people who would strive and go to lengths in negating the very essence of sensibility and rationality, while boasting their knowledge and data-accumulation on the rest of humanity, as prized wisdom:

‘Their likeness is as the likeness of one who kindles fire, and when it sheds its light around him Allah takes away their light and leaves them in darkness, where they cannot see,’

‘Deaf, dumb and blind; and they return not’
‘Or like a rainstorm from the sky, wherein is darkness, thunder and the flash of lightning. They thrust their fingers in their ears by reason of the thunder-claps, for fear of death, Allah encompasses the disbelievers’
‘The lightning almost snatches away their sight from them. As often as it flashes forth for them they walk therein, and when it darkens against them they stand still. If Allah willed, He could destroy their hearing and their sight. Lo! Allah is able to do all things.’ (2:17-20)


aneelashahzad