Yi tunanin kanka kana zaune a wani kusurwa na wani daki. Kofar da ka shiga ta yanzu an rufe ta gaba daya, babu hanyar shiga ko fita. Bango, rufi da bene duk an yi su ne da dutse. Abin da kawai za ka iya yi shi ne kallon budaddiyar sarari mara komai, kewaye da bango masu sanyi, duhu da duwatsu. Saboda gajiya mai tsanani, sai ka yi barci. Bayan 'yan sa'o'i, ka farka. Yayin da ka bude idanunka, sai ka firgita da ganin cewa a tsakiyar dakin akwai teburi da kwamfuta a saman sa. Ka matso kusa da teburin, sai ka lura da wasu kalmomi a allon kwamfutar: "Wannan teburi da wannan kwamfuta sun fito ne daga babu komai."

Imagine you find yourself sitting in the corner of a room. The door that you entered through is now completely sealed and there is no way of entering or exiting. The walls, ceiling and floor are made up of stone. All you can do is stare into open, empty space, surrounded by cold, dark and stony walls. Due to immense boredom, you fall asleep. A few hours pass by; you wake up. As you open your eyes, you are shocked to see that in the middle of the room is a desk with a computer on top of it. You approach the desk and notice some words on the computer screen: This desk and computer came from nothing.

Kuna gaskata abin da kuke karantawa a kan allo? Tabbas ba ku gaskatawa ba. Da farko, kuna dogara ga hankalinku cewa ba zai yiwu kwamfutar da teburin su bayyana ba tare da wani aiki ko sanadi da ya gabace su ba. Sannan kuna fara tunani game da abin da zai iya faruwa. Bayan tunani, kun fahimci wasu dalilai masu ma'ana kaɗan. Na farko shi ne cewa sun iya fitowa ne daga babu wani sanadi ko aiki da ya gabace su, watau daga babu komai. Na biyu shi ne cewa sun iya haifar ko halittar kansu. Na uku shi ne cewa wani sanadi da ya gabace su ne ya halicce su ko ya sanya su a wurin. Tun da hankalin ku yana lafiya kuma yana aiki yadda ya kamata, kun kammala cewa bayani na uku shi ne mafi hankali. Ko da yake wannan hanyar tunani ta duniya ce baki ɗaya, ana iya samun wata ingantacciyar sigar wannan hujja a cikin Alƙur'ani, inda aka taƙaita ta da kyau. Hujjar ta ce yuwuwar bayanai game da yadda wani abu mai iyaka ya wanzu shi ne: ya fito daga babu komai, ya halicci kansa, ko wani abu da aka halicce shi ne ya halicce shi, ko kuma wani abu mara halitta ne ya halicce shi. Kafin in ƙara bayyana wannan hujja, dole ne a lura cewa Alƙur'ani sau da yawa yana gabatar da hujjoji masu ma'ana da hankali. Alƙur'ani littafi ne mai gamsarwa kuma mai ƙarfi wanda ke neman jan hankalin mai karatu. Saboda haka yana shiga zukatanmu da tunaninmu da ƙarfi, kuma yana cimma hakan ta hanyar yin tambayoyi masu zurfi da gabatar da hujjoji masu ƙarfi. Farfesa a fannin Nazarin Musulunci Rosalind Ward Gwynne ta yi sharhi kan wannan fanni na Alƙur'ani: "Gaskiyar cewa yawancin Alƙur'ani yana cikin sigar hujjoji ta nuna irin yadda ake ganin mutane suna buƙatar dalilai ga ayyukansu…."121

Do you believe what you have read on the screen? Of course you do not. At first glance you rely on your intuition that it is impossible for the computer and the desk to have appeared from no prior activity or cause. Then you start to think about what could possibly have happened. After some thought you realise a limited number of reasonable explanations. The first is that they could have come from no causal conditions or prior activity—in other words, nothing. The second is that they could have caused or created themselves. The third is that they could have been created or placed there by some prior cause. Since your cognitive faculties are normal and in working order, you conclude that the third explanation is the most rational. Although this form of reasoning is universal, a more robust variation of the argument can be found eloquently summarised in the Qur’an. The argument states that the possible explanations for a finite entity coming into being could be that it came from nothing, it created itself, it could have been created by something else created, or it was created by something uncreated. Before I break down the argument further, it must be noted that the Qur’an often presents rational intellectual arguments. The Qur’an is a persuasive and powerful text that seeks to engage its reader. Hence it positively imposes itself on our minds and hearts, and the way it achieves this is by asking profound questions and presenting powerful arguments. Associate Professor of Islamic Studies Rosalind Ward Gwynne comments on this aspect of the Qur’an: “The very fact that so much of the Qur’an is in the form of arguments shows to what extent human beings are perceived as needing reasons for their actions….”121

Gwynne kuma yana ganin cewa wannan siffa ta Alkur'ani ta yi tasiri a kan ilimin malamai na Musulunci.

Gwynne also maintains that this feature of the Qur’an influenced Islamic scholarship:

Hankali da hujja suna da matuƙar muhimmanci ga abin da Alƙur'ani ya ƙunsa, kuma suna haɗe da tsarinsa ta hanyar da ba za a iya raba su ba, har ta kai sun siffanta yadda malaman Alƙur'ani suka yi tunani da fahimta.122

“Reasoning and argument are so integral to the content of the Qur’an and so inseparable from its structure that they in many ways shaped the very consciousness of Qur’anic scholars.”122

Wannan alaƙa tsakanin hankali da wahayi an fahimce ta ko da daga malaman Musulunci na farko. Sun fahimci cewa tunani na hankali na ɗaya daga cikin hanyoyin tabbatar da tushen ilimi na Musulunci. Malamin Musulunci na ƙarni na goma sha huɗu, Ibn Taymiyya, ya rubuta cewa malaman Musulunci na farko "sun san cewa dukkan hujjojin wahayi da na hankali gaskiya ne, kuma suna tafiya tare da juna. Duk wanda ya ba hujjojin hankali ƙoƙarin bincike da ya kamata a ba su, zai san cewa sun yi daidai da abin da manzanni suka ba da labari a kai, kuma sun tabbatar masa da wajibcin yin imani da manzanni a abin da suka faɗa game da shi."123.

This relationship between reason and revelation was understood even by early Islamic scholars. They understood that rational thinking was one of the ways to prove the intellectual foundations of Islam. The 14th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya writes that early Islamic scholarship “knew that both revelational and rational proofs were true and that they entailed one another. Whoever gave rational… proofs the complete enquiry due them, knew that they agreed with what the messengers informed them about and that they proved to them the necessity of believing the messengers in what they informed them about.”123.

Hujjar Alƙur'ani.

The Qur’anic argument.

Shi kuwa an halicce su ne daga ba komai? Ko kuwa su ne masu halittar kansu? Ko kuwa sun halicci sammai da ƙasa? A'a, ba su da tabbas.124

The Qur’an provides a powerful argument for God’s existence: “Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and Earth? Rather, they are not certain.”124

Ko da yake wannan hujja tana magana ne a kan mutum, ana iya amfani da ita ga duk wani abu da ya fara wanzuwa, ko kuma duk wani abu da ya bayyana. Alkur'ani yana amfani da kalmar khuliqu, wacce ke nufin an halicce shi, an yi shi, ko kuma ya samo asali.125 Saboda haka, tana iya nufin duk wani abu da ya samu wanzuwa.

Although this argument refers to the human being, it can also be applied to anything that began to exist, or anything that emerged. The Qur’an uses the word khuliqu, which means created, made or originated.125 So it can refer to anything that came into being.

Yanzu bari mu fasa wannan hujja. Alkur'ani ya ambaci hanyoyi huɗu da za a iya bayyana yadda wani abu aka halicce shi, ko ya samu, ko ya wanzu:

Now let us break down the argument. The Qur’an mentions four possibilities to explain how something was created or came into being or existence:

• An halicce su daga babu komai ne? "ko kuwa an halicce su ne daga babu komai?"

• Created by nothing: “or were they created by nothing?”.

• An halicce su ne kansu?

• Self-created: “or were they the creators of themselves?”.

• An halicci wani abu da wani abu da aka halitta: "Ko kuwa an halicci sammai da ƙasa?", wanda ke nuna cewa abin da aka halitta a ƙarshe an halicce shi ne ta wani abu da aka halitta.

• Created by something created: “or did they create the heavens and the Earth?”, which implies a created thing being ultimately created by something else created.

• An halicci ta hanyar wani abu wanda ba a halicce shi ba: "A'a, su dai ba su da yakini," wanda ke nuna cewa musun Allah ba shi da tushe, don haka wannan magana tana nuni da cewa akwai Mahalicci wanda ba a halicce shi ba.126.

• Created by something uncreated: “Rather, they are not certain”, implying that the denial of God is baseless, and therefore the statement implies that there is an uncreated creator.126.

Wannan hujja kuma za a iya mayar da ita zuwa wata ƙa'ida ta gama-gari wadda ba ta buƙatar komawa zuwa nassi ba.

This argument can also be turned into a universal formula that does not require reference to scripture:

1. Duniya tana da iyaka.

1. The universe is finite.

2. Abubuwan da suke da iyaka za su iya fitowa daga babu komai, su halicci kansu, a ƙarshe a halicce su ta wani abu da aka halitta, ko kuma a halicce su ta wani abu wanda ba a halicce shi ba.

2. Finite things could have come from nothing, created themselves, been ultimately created by something created, or been created by something uncreated.

3. Ba za su iya fitowa daga babu komai ba, ko su halicci kansu, ko kuma a karshe a halicce su ta hanyar wani abu da aka halitta.

3. They could not have come from nothing, created themselves, or have been ultimately created by something created.

4. Saboda haka, an halicci su ne ta wani abu wanda ba a halicce shi ba.

4. Therefore, they were created by something uncreated.

Duniya tana da iyaka.

The universe is finite.

Akwai dabaru na falsafa da yawa da ke nuna cewa duniya tana da iyaka. Mafi ƙarfi kuma mafi sauƙi daga cikinsu shi ne tabbatar da cewa ba zai yiwu ba a sami ainihin ƙarshe-babu-iyaka na zahiri. Nau'in ainihin ƙarshe-babu-iyaka da nake magana a kansa a nan wani nau'i ne mai rarrabe, wato ƙarshe-babu-iyaka wanda ya ƙunshi sassa masu rabe-rabe, kamar abubuwa ko halittu na zahiri. Waɗannan abubuwan na zahiri na iya haɗawa da atom, quark, bas, jiraffe da filayen ƙwayoyin zarra. Nau'in ƙarshe-babu-iyaka wanda ba a rarrabe shi ba kuwa, ƙarshe-babu-iyaka ne wanda ba ya ƙunshe da sassa masu rabe-rabe. Wannan ƙarshe-babu-iyaka yana da ma'ana kuma yana iya kasancewa. Misali, ƙarshe-babu-iyaka na Allah, a'a, na God, nau'i ne na ƙarshe-babu-iyaka wanda ba a rarrabe ba, domin shi ba ya ƙunshe da sassan zahiri masu rabe-rabe. A ilimin tauhidi na Musulunci, shi ne Kaɗai, Mai girma fiye da halitta.

A range of philosophical arguments shows the finitude of the universe The most cogent and simplest of these arguments involves demonstrating that an actual physical infinite cannot exist. The type of actual infinite that I am addressing here is a differentiated type of infinite, which is an infinite made up of discrete parts, like physical things or objects. These physical things can include atoms, quarks, buses, giraffes and quantum fields. The undifferentiated type of infinite, however, is an infinite that is not made of discrete parts. This infinite is coherent and can exist. For instance, the infinity of God is an undifferentiated infinite, as He is not made up of discrete physical parts. In Islamic theology, He is uniquely one and transcendent.

Hujjojin da suka fi gamsarwa kuma mafi sauƙin fahimta don tabbatar da cewa ba zai yiwu a sami ainihin ƙarshen-ba (infinite) ba, suna zuwa ne a cikin nau'in gwaje-gwajen tunani. Abin da muke damuwa da shi a nan shi ne rashin yiwuwar a tabbatar da ƙarshen-ba na zahiri a cikin duniya. Wannan ya bambanta da ƙarshen-ba na lissafi. Ko da yake ana iya gabatar da su cikin tsari na hankali, waɗannan suna wanzuwa ne a fagen lissafi, wanda yawanci ya dogara ne akan ƙa'idodi da zato. Abin da muke so mu sani shi ne ko ƙarshen-ba zai iya zama gaskiya a zahirin duniya ta zahiri.

The most persuasive and intuitive arguments to substantiate the impossibility of an actual infinite, come in the form of thought experiments. Now the concern here is with the impossibility of the physical infinite being actualised. This is different from mathematical infinites. Although logically coherent, these exist in the mathematical realm, which is usually based on axioms and assumptions. Our concern is whether the infinite can be realised in the real physical world.

I don't see any text after "the following examples" in your message. Please paste the text you'd like translated from English into Hausa, and I'll translate it for you.

Take the following examples into consideration:

1. Jakar ƙwallo: Ka yi tunanin kana da ƙwallo marasa iyaka a cikin jaka. Idan ka cire ƙwallo biyu, nawa ne suka rage? To, a lissafi har yanzu kana da marasa iyaka. Sai dai a aikace, ya kamata ka sami ƙasa da biyu fiye da abin da ke cikin jakar. Me zai faru idan maimakon cirewa, ka ƙara ƙwallo biyu? Yanzu akwai ƙwallo nawa? Ya kamata a sami biyu fiye da abin da ke cikin jakar.

1. Bag of balls: Imagine you had an infinite number of balls in a bag. If you take two balls away, how many balls do you have left? Well, mathematically you still have an infinite number. However, practically, you should have two less than what is in the bag. What if you added another two balls instead of removing them? How many balls are there now? There should be two more than what was in the bag.

Ya kamata ka iya ƙidaya yawan ƙwallayen da ke cikin jaka, amma ba za ka iya ba, domin rashin iyaka abu ne na tunani kawai, ba ya wanzuwa a zahirin duniya. Wannan a fili yake nuna cewa ba za a iya samun rashin iyaka da aka tabbatar a zahiri ba wanda ya ƙunshi sassa ko abubuwa masu iyaka da za a iya ƙidayawa. Saboda wannan gaskiya, masanin lissafi shahararren ɗan Jamus, David Hilbert, ya ce, "Rashin iyaka ba a samunsa a zahirin duniya. Ba ya wanzuwa a cikin yanayi, kuma ba ya samar da tushe mai inganci ga tunani mai ma'ana… rawar da ya rage wa rashin iyaka ita ce ta zama tunani kawai."127.

You should be able to count how many balls are in the bag, but you cannot because the infinite is just an idea and does not exist in the real world. This clearly shows you cannot have an actualised infinite made up of discrete physical parts or things. In light of this fact, the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought… the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”127.

2. Tarin ƙananan akwatu masu girma daban-daban: Ka yi tunanin kana da tarin akwatu. Kowane akwati an lakafta shi da lamba. Akwati na farko yana da girman ƙara na 10cm3

2. Stack of cubes with different sizes: Imagine you had a stack of cubes. Each cube is numbered. The first cube has a volume of 10cm3

Kube na gaba a saman wancan yana da girman (volume) na 5cm.3

. The next cube on top of that has a volume of 5cm3

Kubu na gaba rabin kubun da ya gabace shi ne. Wannan yana ci gaba har abada (sake da sake ta hanya guda har abada). Yanzu je saman tari ka cire kubun da ke saman. Ba za ka iya ba. Babu kubu da za a iya samu. Me yasa? Domin idan akwai kubu da za a iya samu a saman, hakan zai nuna cewa kubunan ba su kai ga rashin iyaka ba.

and the next cube is half of the previous cube. This goes on ad infinitum (again and again in the same way forever). Now go to the top of the stack and remove the cube at the top. You cannot. There is no cube to be found. Why? Because if there was a cube to be found at the top it would mean that the cubes did not reach infinity.

Haka kuma, tunda babu wata cube a saman tarin, hakan yana nuna—duk da cewa lissafin rashin iyaka (infinite) yana wanzuwa (tare da zato da ka'idoji)—cewa ba za a iya samun rashin iyaka da ya tabbata a zahiri (actualised) a duniyar gaske ba. Tunda babu ƙarshe ga tarin, hakan yana nuna cewa rashin iyaka—wanda ya ƙunshi abubuwa na zahiri masu rabe-rabe (a wannan misali, cube-cube)—ba zai yiwu a tabbatar da shi a zahiri ba.

However, since there is no cube at the top, it also shows— even though the mathematical infinite exists (with assumptions and axioms)—that you cannot have an actualised infinite in the real world. Since there is no end to the stack, it shows the infinite—that is made up of discrete physical things (in this case the cubes)—cannot be physically realised.

Ta fuskar ilimi, babu bambanci tsakanin sararin duniya da jakar ƙwallaye ko tarin kubebe da na bayyana a sama. Duniya gaskiya ce. Tana ƙunshe da abubuwa na zahiri masu rarrabuwa. Tunda cikakkiyar ƙarshen da aka rarrabe ba zai iya wanzuwa a zahirin duniya ba, to ya biyo baya cewa duniya ba za ta iya zama marar iyaka ba. Wannan yana nuna cewa duniya tana da iyaka, kuma tunda tana da iyaka dole ne tana da farko. Binciken kimiyya da ke da alaƙa da farkon duniya ba a tattauna shi a nan ba, saboda bayanan da ake da su a yanzu ba su isa su tabbatar da hakan ba. Rashin isassun shaidu (underdetermination) wani ra'ayi ne da ke bayani cewa ga kowane ka'idar kimiyya da aka gina bisa shaida, koyaushe za a sami aƙalla wata ka'ida ta daban wadda ita ma shaidar ta goyi bayanta. Akwai kusan samfura 17 da ake amfani da su wajen bayyana shaidun sararin samaniya. Wasu daga cikin waɗannan samfura suna kammalawa cewa duniya tana da iyaka kuma tana da farko, wasu kuma suna jayayya cewa duniya ta kasance tun dā har abada. Shaida ba ta kai ga tabbatacciyar hukunci ba. Matsaya na iya canjawa idan an gano sabuwar shaida ko aka ƙirƙiri sabbin samfura (duba Babi na 12).

Conceptually, the universe is no different to the bag of balls or the stack of cubes I have explained above. The universe is real. It is made up of discrete physical things. Since the differentiated infinite cannot exist in the real world, it follows that the universe cannot be infinite. This implies that the universe is finite, and since it is finite it must have had a beginning. The scientific research that relates to the beginning of the universe has not been discussed here because the data is currently underdetermined. Underdetermination is a “thesis explaining that for any scientifically based theory there will always be at least one rival theory that is also supported by the evidence given…” 128 .There are around 17 competing models to explain the cosmological evidence. Some of these models conclude that the universe is finite and had a beginning and others argue that the universe is past eternal. The evidence is not conclusive. The conclusions might change when new evidence is observed or new models are developed (see Chapter 12).

Yanzu muna cikin matsayin da za mu iya amfani da yiwuwar hujja guda huɗu don bayyana farkon duniya da tattaunawa a kan kowacce daga cikinta.

Now we are in a position to apply the four logical possibilities to explain the beginning of the universe and discuss each one.

Halitta daga babu komai?. Kafin in yi magana a kan wannan yiwuwar, dole ne in bayyana abin da ake nufi da ‘babu komai’. ‘Babu komai’ ana bayyana shi da rashin dukkan abubuwa. Domin in kara bayyanawa, ka yi tunanin cewa idan komai, dukkan kwayoyin halitta, makamashi da yuwuwa, sun bace baki daya; wannan yanayi shi ake kira babu komai. Wannan ba a hada shi da quantum vacuum ko quantum field ba, wani ra’ayi da zan bayyana daga baya. ‘Babu komai’ kuma yana nufin rashin duk wani sharadin dalili. Sharadin dalili shi ne duk wani nau’in dalili da ke haifar da sakamako. Wannan dalili na iya zama na zahiri ko kuma wanda ba na zahiri ba.

Created from nothing?. Before I address this possibility, I need to define what is meant by ‘nothing’. Nothing is defined as the absence of all things. To illustrate this better, imagine if everything, all matter, energy and potential, were to vanish; that state would be described as nothing. This is not to be confused with the quantum vacuum or field, a concept I will explain later. Nothing also refers to the absence of any causal condition. A causal condition is any type of cause that produces an effect. This cause can be material or non-material.

Tabbatar da cewa abubuwa za su iya fitowa daga babu komai yana nufin abubuwa za su iya samuwa daga babu wata damar samuwa, babu abu, ko kuma daga babu komai kwata-kwata. Yin irin wannan iƙirari ya saba wa hankalinmu na farko kuma ya saɓa wa hankali.

Asserting that things can come from nothing means that things can come into being from no potential, no matter or nothing at all. To assert such a thing defies our intuitions and stands against reason.

Shin duniya za ta iya samuwa daga babu komai? Amsar a fili ita ce a'a, domin daga babu komai, babu abin da zai fito. Babu komai ba zai iya haifar da wani abu ba. Wani abu ba zai iya samuwa ba tare da wani sharadin sanadi ba kwata-kwata. Wata hanyar kallon lamarin ita ce ta lissafi mai sauki. Menene 0 + 0 + 0? Ba 3 ba ne, 0 ne.

So, could the universe have come into existence from nothing? The obvious answer is no, because from nothing, nothing comes. Nothingness cannot produce anything. Something cannot arise from no causal conditions whatsoever. Another way of looking at it is by way of simple math. What is 0 + 0 + 0? It is not 3, it’s 0.

Ɗaya daga cikin dalilan da yasa wannan magana take da sauƙin fahimta shi ne cewa tana dogara ne akan ƙa'ida ta hankali (ko ta metaphysics): abin da yake a zahiri ba zai iya fitowa daga rashin kasancewa ba. Yin iƙirarin akasin haka abin da zan kira magana ta kin hankali ne. Kowa zai iya cewa kowane abu. Idan wani zai iya cewa dukkan duniya ta fito daga babu komai, to sakamakon hakan zai zama abin dariya. Zai iya cewa wani abu zai iya bayyana ba tare da wani sharaɗin dalili ba kwata-kwata. Domin wani abu ya taso daga babu komai, dole ne ya kasance yana da wani irin yuwuwa ko sharuɗɗan dalili. Tun da babu komai shi ne rashin dukkan abubuwa, ciki har da kowane irin sharaɗin dalili, to babu yadda abu zai iya tasowa daga babu komai. Riƙe cewa abu zai iya tasowa daga babu komai yana daidai da ra'ayin cewa abubuwa za su iya ɓacewa, ruɓewa, lalacewa ko bacewa ba tare da wani sharaɗin dalili ba. Mutanen da suke jayayya cewa abu zai iya fitowa daga babu komai dole ne su yarda cewa abu zai iya ɓacewa ba tare da wani dalili ba. Misali, idan wani gini ya ɓace gaba ɗaya, irin waɗannan mutane bai kamata su yi mamaki ba, domin idan abubuwa za su iya fitowa ba tare da wani sharaɗin dalili ba, to hakan yana nufin abubuwa suma za su iya ɓacewa ba tare da wani dalili ba. Duk da haka, cewa abubuwa za su iya ɓacewa kawai ba tare da wata alaƙa da wani sharaɗin dalili ba, abu ne da ya saɓa wa hankali. Wata magana da ake yawan yi ita ce cewa duniya za ta iya fitowa daga babu komai, domin a cikin "quantum vacuum" ƙwayoyin zarra suna bayyana kwatsam. Wannan hujja tana ɗauka cewa quantum vacuum babu komai ne. Amma wannan ba gaskiya ba ne. Quantum vacuum wani abu ne; ba ɓoyayyen babu komai ba ne, kuma yana bin dokokin kimiyyar physics. Quantum vacuum yanayi ne na makamashi mai wucewa da sauri. Don haka ba babu komai ba ne, abu ne na zahiri.

One of the reasons that this is so intuitive is because it is based on a rational (or metaphysical) principle: being cannot come from nonbeing. To assert the opposite is what I would call counter discourse. Anyone could claim anything. If someone can claim that the entire universe can come from nothing, then the implications would be absurd. They could assert that anything could come into being without any causal conditions at all. For something to arise from nothing it must have at least some type of potential or causal conditions. Since nothing is the absence of all things, including any type of causal condition, then something could not arise from nothing. Maintaining that something can arise from nothing is logically equivalent to the notion that things can vanish, decay, annihilate or disappear without any causal conditions whatsoever. Individuals who argue that something can come from nothing must also maintain that something can vanish from no causal conditions at all. For example, if a building completely vanished, such individuals should not be surprised by the event, because if things can come from no causal conditions at all, then it logically implies that things can vanish by means of no causal conditions as well. However, to argue that things can just vanish without reference to any causal condition would be rationally absurd. A common contention is that the universe could come from nothing because in the quantum vacuum particles pop into existence. This argument assumes that the quantum vacuum is nothing. However, this is not true. The quantum vacuum is something; it is not an absolute void and it obeys the laws of physics. The quantum vacuum is a state of fleeting energy. So it is not nothing, it is something physical.129.

Professor Lawrence Krauss’s ‘nothing’.

Professor Lawrence Krauss’s ‘nothing’.

Farfesa Lawrence Krauss, littafinsa mai suna A Universe from Nothing, ya farfado da muhawarar tambayar Leibniz da kuma yada ta sosai: "Me ya sa akwai wani abu maimakon babu komai?" A cikin littafinsa, Krauss ya yi jayayya cewa yana yiwuwa duniya ta samo asali daga "babu komai." Ko da yake wannan na iya zama kamar abin mamaki, akwai wasu zato da bayanai da ya kamata a fayyace domin a fahimci mahallin ƙarshen bincikensa.

Professor Lawrence Krauss’s book, A Universe from Nothing, invigorated and popularised the debate on the Leibnizian question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”130 In his book, Krauss argues that it is plausible that the universe arose from ‘nothing’. Absurd as this may sound, a few presuppositions and clarifications need to be brought to light to understand the context of his conclusions.

Ba-komai na Krauss a zahiri yana da wani abu. A cikin littafinsa, yana kiran babu komai da "mara tsayuwa"131, kuma a wani wuri yana tabbatar da cewa babu komai wani abu ne na zahiri, wanda yake kira "sararin da babu kome a cikinsa amma yana wanzuwa tun farko"132.

Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is actually something. In his book, he calls nothing “unstable”131, and elsewhere he affirms that nothing is something physical, which he calls “empty but pre-existing space”132.

Wannan wani sabon salo ne na harshe mai ban sha'awa, domin ma'anar kalmar "nothing" a harshen Turanci tana nufin musanta komai gaba ɗaya, amma da alama "nothing" ɗin Krauss lakabi ne ga wani abu. Duk da cewa binciken nasa ya ce "nothing" rashin lokaci, sarari da ƙwayoyin zarra ne, yana ɓatar da mai karatu wanda ba shi da horo, kuma ya kasa tabbatarwa (a sarari) cewa har yanzu akwai wani abu na zahiri. Ko da, kamar yadda Krauss ya ce, babu kwayoyin zarra, dole ne a sami filayen zahiri. Wannan saboda ba zai yiwu a sami yanki da babu filaye ba, domin ba za a iya toshe nauyi ba. A ka'idar ƙwayoyin zarra (quantum theory), nauyi a wannan matakin na gaskiya ba ya buƙatar abubuwa masu nauyi, amma yana buƙatar abu na zahiri. Saboda haka, "nothing" na Krauss a zahiri wani abu ne. A wani wuri a cikin littafinsa, ya rubuta cewa komai ya samo asali ne daga rikicewar ƙwayoyin zarra (quantum fluctuations), wanda ke bayyana halitta daga "nothing", amma hakan yana nuna cewa akwai yanayin ƙwayoyin zarra da ya riga ya wanzu domin hakan ya zama mai yiwuwa.

This is an interesting linguistic deviation, as the definition of nothing in the English language refers to a universal negation, but it seems that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is a label for something. Although his research claims that ‘nothing’ is the absence of time, space and particles, he misleads the untrained reader and fails to confirm (explicitly) that there is still some physical stuff. Even if, as Krauss claims, there is no matter, there must be physical fields. This is because it is impossible to have a region where there are no fields because gravity cannot be blocked. In quantum theory, gravity at this level of reality does not require objects with mass, but does require physical stuff. Therefore, Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is actually something. Elsewhere in his book, he writes that everything came into being from quantum fluctuations, which explains a creation from ‘nothing’, but that implies a pre-existent quantum state in order for that to be a possibility.133.

Farfesa David Albert, marubucin littafin Quantum Mechanics and Experience, ya rubuta bita kan littafin Krauss, kuma ya kai ga irin wannan ƙarshe.

Professor David Albert, the author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience, wrote a review of Krauss’s book, and similarly concludes:

“Lakin wannan ba daidai ba ne. Yanayin vacuum na relativistic-quantum-field-theory, kamar yadda giraffe ko firiji ko tsarin hasken rana suke, tsare-tsare ne na musamman na abu mai sauƙi na zahiri. Daidai da relativistic-quantum-field-theory ga rashin kowane abu na zahiri ba wani tsari na musamman na filayen ba ne — shi ne kawai rashin filayen! Gaskiyar cewa wasu tsare-tsare na filaye suna dacewa da kasancewar barbashi, wasu kuma ba su dace ba, ba ta fi ban mamaki ba fiye da gaskiyar cewa wasu daga cikin yiwuwar tsare-tsaren yatsun hannuna suna dacewa da kasancewar dunƙule, wasu kuma ba su dace ba. Haka kuma barbashi na iya bayyana su ɓace cikin lokaci yayin da waɗannan filaye ke sake tsara kansu, ba ya fi ban mamaki ba fiye da yadda dunƙule ke bayyana ya ɓace cikin lokaci yayin da yatsun hannuna ke sake tsara kansu. Kuma babu ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan bayyanuwa da ɓacewa — idan an duba su yadda ya kamata — da ke nufin wani abu ko kusa da halittar daga babu kome.” 134.

“But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of simple physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields —it is just the absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some do not is not any more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some do not. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not any more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighbourhood of a creation from nothing.” 134.

Bambance-bambancen falsafa.

Philosophical distinctions.

Abin mamaki, da alama Farfesa Krauss ya canza ma'anar kalmar "babu komai" don ya amsa tambayar Leibniz ta har abada. Wannan ya sa dukkan muhawarar ta zama mai matsala, domin ma'anar Krauss tana rikitar da bambance-bambancen falsafa da aka sani sosai. Kalmar "babu komai" ta kasance koyaushe tana nufin rashin wanzuwa ko rashin wani abu.135 Saboda haka, abin da ma'anar Krauss ta "babu komai" ke nufi shi ne cewa zai iya zama mai ma'ana ga wani ya tabbatar da abu mai zuwa:

Interestingly, Professor Krauss seems to have changed the definition of nothing in order to answer Leibniz’s perennial question. This makes the whole discussion problematic as Krauss’s definition blurs well-known philosophical distinctions. The term ‘nothing’ has always referred to non-being or the absence of something.135 Therefore, the implications of Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is that it could be reasonable for someone to assert the following:

"Na yi abincin dare mai daɗi a daren jiya, kuma ba wani abu ba ne."

“I had a wonderful dinner last night, and it was nothing.”.

"Ban sami kowa ba a falon, sai suka nuna mini hanyar zuwa wannan ɗakin."

“I met nobody in the hall and they showed me directions to this room.”.

Babu abin da ke daɗi da gishiri da barkono.136.

“Nothing is tasty with salt and pepper.”136.

Waɗannan maganganu ba su da ma'ana ta hankali, saboda haka suna zama jimloli marasa ma'ana, sai dai idan wani ya canja ma'anar kalmar "babu". Ba abin mamaki ba ne cewa Farfesa Krauss yana nuna cewa ra'ayinsa game da "babu" ba ya nufin rashin wanzuwa. Ya rubuta: "Abu ɗaya tabbas, duk da haka. Ƙa'idar metaphysical, wadda waɗanda na yi muhawara da su kan batun halitta suke riƙewa a matsayin imani marar canjawa, watau cewa 'daga babu, babu abin da ke fitowa', ba ta da tushe a kimiyya."137

These statements are irrational statements and therefore amount to meaningless propositions, unless of course someone changes the definition of nothing. It is no wonder that Professor Krauss hints that his view of nothing does not refer to non-being. He writes: “One thing is certain, however. The metaphysical ‘rule,’ which is held as ironclad conviction by those with whom I have debated the issue of creation, namely that ‘out of nothing, nothing comes,’ has no foundation in science.”137

Wannan yana nufin cewa Krauss ya canza ma'anar "babu" (nothing) zuwa wani abu, domin hanyar kimiyya tana mayar da hankali ne kan abubuwa a duniyar zahiri. Kimiyya tana iya amsa tambayoyi ne kawai ta fuskar abubuwan halitta da hanyoyin halitta. Idan muka tambayi tambayoyi kamar: Menene ma'anar rayuwa? Shin rai yana wanzuwa? Menene "babu"? Abin da ake tsammani shi ne amsoshi na metaphysical (na bayan jiki) – don haka suna wajen iyakar duk wani bayani na kimiyya (duba Babi na 12).

This clearly means Krauss has changed the meaning of nothing to mean something, because science as a method focuses on things in the physical world. Science can only answer in terms of natural phenomena and natural processes. When we ask questions like: What is the meaning of life? Does the soul exist? What is nothing? The general expectation is to have metaphysical answers—and hence, outside the scope of any scientific explanation (see Chapter 12).

Kimiyya ba za ta iya magana a kan ra'ayin babu komai ko rashin wanzuwa ba, domin kimiyya tana iyakance ga matsalolin da lura da gwaji za su iya warwarewa. Masanin falsafar kimiyya Elliot Sober ya tabbatar da wannan iyakancewa. Ya rubuta a cikin makalarsa mai suna Empiricism cewa “kimiyya tana tilasta wa kanta takaita hankalinta ga matsalolin da lura za ta iya warwarewa.”138 Saboda haka, Farfesa Krauss ya canza ma'anar kalmar “babu komai”, domin kimiyya ta iya warware wata matsala da ba za ta iya warwarewa ba tun farko. Watakila ya kamata a karɓi wannan sakamako a matsayin shan kaye, domin hakan yayi daidai da wanda ba zai iya amsa tambaya ba, sai maimakon ya amince da shan kayensa ko ya miƙa tambayar ga wani, sai ya fara canza ma'anar tambayar.

Science cannot address the idea of nothing or non-being, because science is restricted to problems that observations can solve. Philosopher of science Elliot Sober verifies this limitation. He writes in his essay Empiricism that “science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.”138 Therefore, Professor Krauss has changed the meaning of the word “nothing”, in order for science to solve a problem that it could not originally solve. Perhaps this outcome should be accepted as a defeat as it is tantamount to someone not being able to answer a question, and instead of admitting defeat or referring the question to someone else, resorting to changing the meaning of the question.

Zai fi gaskiya a ce kawai ra'ayin "babu komai" ra'ayi ne na metaphysics (na falsafar bayan zahiri), kuma kimiyya tana mu'amala ne kawai da abin da za a iya lura da shi.

It would have been intellectually more honest to just say that the concept of nothing is a metaphysical concept, and science only deals with what can be observed.

Binciken da bai kai ga ƙarshe ba da kuma ƙoƙarin sanya dabarun harshe masu sarƙaƙiya cikin sauƙi ga jama'a.

Inconclusive research and popularising linguistic gymnastics.

Duk waɗannan an ajiye su gefe, Farfesa Krauss ya yarda cewa binciken sa game da "babu komai" (nothingness) yana da ruɗani kuma ba shi da cikakkiyar hujja. Ya rubuta cewa: "Ina jaddada kalmar could a nan, domin watakila ba za mu taba samun isasshen bayanan gwaji ba don warware wannan tambaya ba tare da ruɗani ba."139

Putting all of this aside, Professor Krauss admits that his ‘nothingness’ research is ambiguous and lacks conclusive evidence. He writes, “I stress the word could here, because we may never have enough empirical information to resolve this question unambiguously.”139

A cikin littafinsa a wani wuri ya yarda da rashin tabbacin hujjarsa: "Saboda matsalolin lura da na ka'idar da ke da alaƙa da ita wajen fitar da cikakkun bayanai, ina tsammanin ba za mu taɓa samun fiye da kamanceceniya da gaskiya a wannan fanni ba."140.

Elsewhere in his book he admits the inconclusive nature of his argument: “Because of the observational and related theoretical difficulties associated with working out the details, I expect we may never achieve more than plausibility in this regard.”140.

Saboda haka, Farfesa Krauss ya kamata ya ce kawai cewa sararin duniya ya samo asali daga wani abu na zahiri kamar yanayin injin ƙarfin atomi (vacuum state), maimakon sake fasalta ma'anar kalmar "babu komai". Amma Krauss da alama yana dage wajen yada wannan dabarar harshe mai rikitarwa. A lokacin muhawararmu: Musulunci ko Rashin Imani: Wanne Ya Fi Hankali? Na yi amfani da littafinsa don bayyana cewa "babu komai" nasa abu ne, kamar wani nau'i na hazo na ƙwayoyin zarra. Sai dai ya mayar da martani ya ce "babu komai" nasa shi ne "babu sarari, babu lokaci, babu dokoki… babu sararin duniya, babu komai, sifili, babu kome, babu kome kwata-kwata."141

In light of this, Professor Krauss should have just said the universe came from something physical like a vacuum state, rather than redefining the word nothing. But Krauss seems to be adamant in popularising his linguistic gymnastics. During our debate: Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense? I referred to his book to explain that his nothing is something, like some form of quantum haze. However, he reacted and said that his nothing is “No space, no time, no laws… there’s no universe, nothing, zero, zip, nada.”141

Krauss ya ga alama cewa ya boye wani muhimmin sharadi da ba a bayyana ba: har yanzu akwai wani abu na zahiri a cikin "babu" nasa, abin da ya amince da shi a wani laccar jama'a. Ya ce abin da ake kira "wani abu" da "babu" su ne "… ma'auni na zahiri."142

Krauss seemed to have deliberately omitted an important hidden premise: there is still some physical stuff in his nothing, something which he clearly admitted to in a public lecture. He said that something and nothing are “… physical quantities.”142

A taƙaice, abin da Farfesa Krauss ya kira "babu komai" a zahiri wani abu ne na zahiri. Saboda haka ya kasa amsa tambayar Leibniz: Me ya sa akwai wani abu maimakon babu komai? A gaskiya, Krauss yana amsa tambaya ɗaya kawai: Ta yaya wani abu ya samo asali daga wani abu? Wannan tambaya ce da kimiyya za ta iya amsawa, kuma ba ta buƙatar sarrafa kalmomi ba.

In summary, Professor Krauss’s nothing is something. The universe came from something physical which Krauss calls “nothing”, and therefore failing to answer Leibniz’s question: Why is there something rather than nothing? In reality, Krauss only answers the question: How did something come from something? That is a question that science can answer, and which does not require linguistic acrobatics.

Wanzon Allah ba ya rasa tabbaci saboda ra'ayin Krauss game da babu komai. Abin da ya gabatar mana kawai shi ne cewa sararin samaniya (lokaci da sarari) ya fito daga wani abu. Saboda haka, sararin samaniya har yanzu yana bukatar bayani game da wanzuwarsa.

God’s existence is not undermined by Krauss’s view on nothing. All that he has really presented to us is that the universe (time and space) came from something. Therefore, the universe still requires an explanation for its existence.

"Sababi yana da ma'ana ne kawai a cikin wannan duniyar; saboda haka, duniya na iya kasancewa daga babu komai."

“Causality only makes sense within this universe; therefore, the universe may have come from nothing.”.

Tattaunawar tarihi da ta ilimi game da ra'ayin dangantakar sanadi da sakamako (causality) sun haɗa da suka da David Hume ya yi, cewa dangantakar sanadi da sakamako ra'ayi ne da aka samo daga abubuwan da muke fuskanta. Idan Hume yana daidai game da dangantakar sanadi da sakamako, to ba mu da hujja ta tabbatar da cewa wannan ra'ayi yana wanzuwa ko yana da ma'ana a bayan abubuwan da muka fuskanta. Tun da muhawarar wannan babi tana magana ne game da al'amuran da suke waje da abubuwan da muka fuskanta, watau yadda duniya ta samu, to ba za a iya amfani da dangantakar sanadi da sakamako wajen bayyana waɗannan al'amura ba. A wata ma'ana, duniya za ta iya fitowa daga babu komai, domin ra'ayin dangantakar sanadi da sakamako yana iya yin ma'ana ne kawai a cikin duniyar, kuma ba za a iya amfani da shi ga wani abu da yake waje da ita ba. Idan ba mu da wani ƙwarewa game da farkon duniya ko abin da ya faru kafin wanzuwarta, to ya kamata mu yi shiru game da wannan batu.

Historical and academic discussions on the notion of causality include David Hume’s objection that causality is a concept derived from our experiences. If Hume is right about causality, then we are not justified in postulating that the concept of causality exists or makes sense outside of our experiences. Since the argument in this chapter refers to events outside of our experience—how the universe came into existence—causality cannot be used to explain these events. In other words, the universe could have come from nothing, because the notion of causality may only make sense within the universe and cannot be applied to anything outside of it. If we have no experience of the beginning of the universe or what happened prior to its existence, then we should simply stay silent on the matter.

Wannan ƙin amincewa yana ɗauka ba daidai ba cewa dangantakar sanadi da sakamako ra'ayi ne da aka samo daga gogewa. Sanadi da sakamako a fili suna da tushe a gaban gogewa (a priori); ilimi ne da ya gabaci gogewa. Ra'ayi ne na zahiri (metaphysical) wanda ake buƙata domin mu fahimci abubuwan da muke gani da ji tun farko. Mu ne muke kawo shi zuwa dukkan gogewarmu, ba gogewarmu ce take kawo shi gare mu ba. Kamar sanye da tabarau masu launin rawaya ne: komai yana bayyana da rawaya ba don wani abu a duniya ba, sai don tabarau da muke kallon komai ta cikinsu. Ba tare da sanadi ba, da ba za mu iya samun fahimta mai ma'ana game da duniya ba. Ka yi la'akari da wannan misali: ka ce kana kallon Fadar White House a Washington DC. Idanunka na iya zuwa ƙofar, sannan ginshiƙan, sannan rufin, kuma daga ƙarshe filin gaba. Kana iya kuma juya tsarin: ka fara kallon filin, sannan rufin, ginshiƙan, kuma daga ƙarshe ƙofar. Yanzu ka kwatanta wannan da wani gogewa daban: kana kan Kogin Thames a London ka ga jirgin ruwa yana wucewa. Za ka iya ganin gaban jirgin kafin ka ga bayansa, kuma ba za ka iya juya tsarin wannan gogewa ba yayin da jirgin ke wucewa. Lokacin da kake kallon White House kana da zaɓi ka ga ƙofar farko sannan ginshiƙai, da sauransu. Kana iya kuma juya tsarin abubuwan da kake gani. Amma da jirgin ruwan, ba ka da zaɓi. Gaban jirgin ne ya fara bayyana, kuma ba za ka iya sake tsara abubuwan da kake gani ta hanyar ƙoƙarin ganin bayan kafin gaban ba. To me ke ƙayyade tsarin da waɗannan gogewa suka faru? Me ya sa ka san lokacin da za ka iya tsara abubuwan da kake gani da lokacin da ba za ka iya ba? Amsar ita ce ra'ayin sanadi da sakamako. Akwai alaƙoƙin sanadi masu ma'ana da ke faruwa a cikin zuciyarka yayin da kake lura da White House da jirgin ruwan.

This objection falsely assumes that causality is a concept based on experience. Causality is a priori; knowledge prior to experience. It is a metaphysical concept, that is required in order for us to understand our experiences in the first place. We bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Without causality, we would not be able to have a meaningful understanding of the world. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. You can also reverse the order of your perceptions; you can first start to look at the lawn, then to the roof, the pillars and finally the roof. Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. You can only see the front of the boat before you see the back, and you cannot reverse the order of that experience as the boat floats past. When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. You could also reverse the order of your perceptions. However, with the boat you had no choice. The front of the boat was the first to appear, and you could not reorder your perceptions by trying to see the back before you saw the front. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? Why is it that you know when you can order your perceptions and when you cannot? The answer is the concept of causality. There are logical causal connections occurring in your mind while you are perceiving the White House and the boat.

Maganar da ya kamata a fahimta a nan ita ce, ba za ka iya bambance tsakanin abubuwan da ka tsara kanka da wadanda ke tsara kansu ba tare da kai ba, sai ka mallaki ra'ayin dalili da sakamako (causality). Idan babu dalili da sakamako, abubuwan da muke fuskanta za su bambanta sosai da yadda suke yanzu. Za su zama jerin abubuwan da suke faruwa kawai ɗaya bayan ɗaya. Dalili da sakamako ba sa dogara ga gogewarmu, domin ba za mu iya fuskantar kowane abu ba tare da su ba. Saboda haka, a hankalce yana biyo baya cewa dalili da sakamako suna wanzuwa kafin gogewarmu ta duniya.

The point to take here is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently, unless you had the concept of causality. In absence of causality, our experiences would be very different from the way that they are. They would be a single sequence of experiences only: one thing after another. Causality is independent of experience because we would not be able to experience anything without it. Therefore, it logically follows that causality exists prior to our experience of the universe.

Idan ba za a iya samun wani abu daga babu ba, to ta yaya Allah ya halicci abubuwa daga babu? Note on the rules: the source says "God", so the Hausa word for God should be used instead of "Allah". Corrected version: Idan ba za a iya samun wani abu daga babu ba, to ta yaya Ubangiji ya halicci abubuwa daga babu?

If you cannot have something from nothing, then how did God create from nothing?.

Wannan zargi karya ce ta ƙarya, domin yana nuna cewa Allah ba komai ba ne. Allah wani mai aiki ne na musamman, mai iya halitta da kawo abubuwa zuwa wanzuwa ta hanyar nufinsa da ikonsa. Saboda haka, ba batun wani abu ne da ke fitowa daga babu ba. Nufin Allah da ikonsa su ne sharuɗɗan dalili da suka kawo duniya zuwa wanzuwa. Abu da ke fitowa daga babu ba zai yiwu ba, domin babu yana nufin rashin wanzuwa, babu wata iyawa, kuma babu sharuɗɗan dalili. Ba shi da hankali a ce wani abu zai iya fitowa daga wani gurbi marar iyaka ba tare da wata iyawa ba ko wani aiki na dalili da ya gabata. Allah ne ke samar da wannan aiki na dalili ta hanyar nufinsa da ikonsa. Ko da yake malamai a al'adar ilimin Musulunci suna cewa Allah ya halitta daga babu, wannan halitta tana nufin cewa babu wani abu na zahiri a can. Duk da haka, ba ta nufin cewa babu sharuɗɗan dalili ko iyawa ba.

This contention is false, as it implies that God is nothing. God is a unique agent with the potential to create and bring things into existence through His will and power. Therefore, it is not the case of something coming from nothing. God’s will and power were the causal conditions to bring the universe into existence. Something coming from nothing is impossible, because nothing implies non-being, no potential and no causal conditions. It is irrational to assert that something can emerge from an absolute void without any potential or prior causal activity. God provides that causal activity via His will and power. Even though the Islamic intellectual tradition refers to God creating from nothing, this act of creation means that there was no material stuff. However, it does not assume that there were no causal conditions or potential.

Nufin Allah da ikonsa sune sharuddan dalili da ke kawo samuwar duniya. Wait, per rules: never write "Allah"; write the Hausa word for God, which is "Allah"? The rule says write Hausa word for God, never "Allah". Hausa word for God is "Ubangiji" or "Ubangiji Allah"... The Hausa for God commonly is "Ubangiji". Corrected: Nufin Ubangiji da ikonsa sune sharuddan dalili da ke kawo samuwar duniya.

143 God’s will and power form the causal conditions to bring the universe into existence.

Wanda ya halicci kansa?

Self-created?.

Shin kwayoyin halitta za su iya halittar kansu? Kalmar ‘halitta’ tana nufin wani abu da ya fito, saboda haka a da ba ya wanzuwa. Wata hanyar magana game da abin da aka halitta ita ce an kawo shi zuwa wanzuwa. Duk waɗannan kalmomi suna nuna cewa abu yana da iyaka, domin duk abin da aka halitta yana da iyaka. Fahimtar ma'anar halitta yana kai mu ga ƙarshe cewa halittar kai kanta ba zai yiwu ba, a ka’ida da kuma a aikace. Wannan saboda halittar kai tana nufin cewa abu yana wanzuwa kuma ba ya wanzuwa a lokaci guda, wanda ba zai yiwu ba. Abu da ya fito yana nufin a da ba ya wanzuwa; amma a ce ya halicci kansa yana nufin yana wanzuwa kafin ya wanzu! Ka yi la’akari da wannan tambaya: Shin zai yiwu mahaifiyarka ta haifi kanta? A ce haka zai nuna cewa sai ta haihu kafin a haife ta. Idan aka halicci abu, yana nufin a da ba ya wanzuwa, saboda haka ba shi da iko na yin komai. Saboda haka, a ce ya halicci kansa ba zai yiwu ba, domin ba zai iya samun iko kafin a halicce shi ba don ya halicci kansa. Wannan ya shafi kowane abu mai iyaka, ciki har da duniya. Malamin Musulunci Al-Khattabi ya taƙaita kuskuren wannan hujja da kyau:

Could the universe have created itself? The term ‘created’ refers to something that emerged, and therefore it was once not in existence. Another way of speaking about something being created is that it was brought into being. All of these words imply something being finite, as all things that were created are finite. Understanding the concept of creation leads us to conclude that self-creation is a logical and practical impossibility. This is due to the fact that self-creation implies that something was in existence and not in existence at the same time, which is impossible. Something that emerged means that it once was not in existence; however, to say that it created itself implies that it was in existence before it existed! Consider the following question: Was it possible for your mother to give birth to herself? To claim such a thing would suggest that she would have to be born before she was born. When something is created, it means it once did not exist, and therefore had no power to do anything. So to claim that it created itself is impossible, as it could not have any power before it was created in order to create itself. This applies to all finite things, and that includes the universe too. Islamic scholar Al-Khattabi aptly summarises the fallacy of this argument:

Wannan hujja ta fi ta baya rauni, domin idan wani abu ba ya wanzuwa, ta yaya za a bayyana shi da mallakar iko, kuma ta yaya zai iya halittar komai? Ta yaya zai iya yin komai? Idan aka karyata wadannan hujjoji guda biyu, to an tabbatar cewa suna da Mahalicci, don haka bari su yi imani da Shi.144

“This is [an] even more fallacious argument, because if something does not exist, how can it be described as having power, and how could it create anything? How could it do anything? If these two arguments are refuted, then it is established that they have a creator, so let them believe in Him.”144

Andrew Compson, shugaban Ƙungiyar Humanist ta Birtaniya a yanzu, ya taɓa shiga muhawara da ni a jami'ar Birmingham. Na gabatar da hujjar Alƙur'ani game da wanzuwar Allah. Amsarsa ga ikirarina cewa halittar kai da kai ba zai yiwu ba ita ce halittar kai da kai tana iya samuwa a cikin halittu masu sel ɗaya, wanda a ilimin halittu ake kira haifuwa ba tare da jima'i ba. Ƙin yarda da Andrew ba shi da gaskiya a wasu dalilai. Na farko, abin da ya ambata game da halittu masu sel ɗaya ba halittar kai da kai ba ce, sai dai hanyar haifuwa wadda zuriya ke fitowa daga halitta ɗaya kuma tana gadar kayan halittar iyayenta kawai. Na biyu, idan muka tsawaita misalinsa zuwa ga duniya a hankali, yana ɗauka cewa duniya koyaushe tana wanzuwa, domin haifuwa ba tare da jima'i ta faru ba sai akwai iyaye da suka wanzu tun kafin zuriyar. Saboda haka, ƙin yarda nasa a zahiri yana tabbatar da abin da nake faɗa; duniya a wani lokaci ba ta wanzu ba, don haka ba za ta iya kawo kanta cikin wanzuwa ba. Kila kuna ganin wannan ƙin yarda abin dariya ne, kuma ba wajibi ba ne a tattauna shi. Na yarda da hakan. Duk da haka, na haɗa shi ne domin in nuna yadda wasu hujjojin masu ƙin Allah suke da rashin hankali.

Andrew Compson, the current chair of the British Humanist Association, once engaged in a public debate with me at the University of Birmingham. I presented the Qur’anic argument for God’s existence. His response to my assertion that self-creation is impossible was that self-creation can be found in single-celled organisms, also known in biology as asexual reproduction. Andrew’s objection is false on a few grounds. Firstly, what he referred to in single-celled organisms is not self-creation, but rather a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism and inherit the genetic material of that parent only. Secondly, if we logically extend his example to the universe, it assumes that the universe always existed, because for asexual reproduction to occur you need a parent that existed prior to the offspring. Therefore, his objection actually proves the point I was making; the universe once never existed, so it could not bring itself into existence. You may be thinking that this objection is absurd, and it was not necessary to discuss it. I agree. However, I included this to show how unreasonable some atheist counter-arguments can be.

An wani abu da aka halitta ne ya halicce shi?

Created by something else that was created?.

Ka ce "eh" domin muhawara kawai, mu amsa tambayar: shin an halicci sararin samaniya ta wani abu da aka halitta? Shin hakan zai gamsar da mai tambaya? Babu shakka a'a. Mutumin da yake ƙin gaskiya zai tambaya babu shakka, "To, me ya halicci wancan abu?" Idan muka amsa, "Wani abu da aka halitta", me kake tsammani zai ce? Eh, ka yi hasashe daidai: "Me ya halicci wancan abu?" Idan wannan maganar wauta ta ci gaba har abada, to za ta tabbatar da abu ɗaya: buƙatar wani Mahalicci wanda ba a halicce shi ba.

For argument sake, let’s answer “yes” to the following question: Was the universe created by something else created? Will that satisfy the questioner? Obviously not. The contentious person will undoubtedly ask, “Then, what created that thing?” If we were to answer, “Another created thing”, what do you think he would say? Yes, you guessed right: “What created that thing?” If this ridiculous dialogue continued forever, then it would prove one thing: the need for an uncreated creator.

Me yasa? Domin ba zai yiwu ba a sami yanayin da wani abu da aka halitta, kamar duniya, ya halitta ta wani abu da aka halitta, a cikin jerin da ba shi da iyaka yana komawa baya har abada ba (wanda aka sani da koma-baya mara iyaka na dalilai). Hakan ba ya da ma'ana kwata-kwata. Ku yi la'akari da misalai masu zuwa:

Why? Because we cannot have the case of a created thing, like the universe, being created by another created thing in an unlimited series going back forever (known as an infinite regress of causes). It simply does not make sense. Consider the following examples:

Ka yi tunanin cewa wani maharbi, wanda ya riga ya tsare manufarsa, ya kira hedikwata ta rediyo don neman izinin harbi.

• Imagine that a sniper, who has acquired his designated target, radios through to HQ to get permission to shoot.

HQ, duk da haka, yana gaya wa maharbin ya jira yayin da suke neman izni daga wani wanda ke sama da shi. Daga baya, wanda ke sama da shi yana neman izni daga wanda ya fi shi sama, haka kuma har abada. Idan wannan ya ci gaba har abada, shin maharbin zai taba harbi maƙasudin? Tabbas ba zai iya ba! Zai ci gaba da jira, yayin da wani kuma yana jiran wanda ke sama da shi ya ba da umarni. Dole ne a sami wuri ko mutum daga inda ake bayar da umarni; wuri da babu wanda ke sama da shi. Don haka, misalin mu ya nuna lahanin hankali a ra'ayin cewa sakamakon dalilai na iya ci gaba ba iyaka. Idan muka yi amfani da wannan a kan duniya, dole ne mu yarda cewa tana da mahalicci wanda ba a halicce shi ba. Duniya, wacce abu ne da aka halitta, ba za ta iya halitta ta wani abu da aka halitta ba, har abada. Idan haka ne, wannan duniyar ba za ta wanzu ba. Tunda tana wanzuwa, za mu iya watsi da ra'ayin cewa sakamakon dalilai na ci gaba ba iyaka a matsayin shawara marar hankali.145.

HQ, however, tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from someone higher-up. Subsequently, the person higher-up seeks permission from the guy even higher up, and so on and so on. If this keeps going on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? Of course not! He will keep on waiting while someone else is waiting for a person higher up to give the order. There has to be a place or person from where the command is issued; a place where there is no one higher. Thus, our example illustrates the rational flaw in the idea of an infinite regress of causes. When we apply this to the universe we have to posit that it must have had an uncreated creator. The universe, which is a created thing, could not be created by another created thing, ad infinitum. If that were the case this universe would not exist. Since it exists, we can dismiss the idea of an infinite regress of causes as an irrational proposition.145.

• Ka yi tunanin cewa wani dillali a kasuwar hannayen jari ba zai iya sayen ko sayar da hannayen jarinsa ko bondodinsa ba sai ya nemi izini daga mai saka hannun jari. Da zarar dillalin ya nemi izini daga mai saka hannun jarinsa, shi ma sai ya tabbatar da izinin tare da nasa mai saka hannun jarin. Ka yi tunanin wannan lamari zai ci gaba haka har abada. Shin dillalin zai taba sayen ko sayar da hannayen jarinsa ko bondodinsa? Amsar ita ce a'a. Dole ne a sami mai saka hannun jari wanda ke ba da izini ba tare da yana bukatar izini daga kowa ba. Haka nan, idan muka yi amfani da wannan ga duniya, dole ne mu tabbatar da cewa akwai wanda ya halicci duniya, wanda shi kansa ba a halicce shi ba.

• Imagine if a stock trader at the stock exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor. Once the stock trader asked his investor, he also had to check with his investor. Imagine if this went on forever. Would the stock trader ever buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. There must be an investor who gives the permission without requiring any permission himself. In similar light, if we apply this to the universe, we would have to posit a creator for the universe that is uncreated.

Da zarar an yi amfani da misalan da ke sama kai tsaye ga sararin samaniya, hakan zai nuna rashin hankalin ra'ayin cewa sararin samaniya a ƙarshe an halicce shi ne ta hannun wani abu da aka halitta. Ka yi tunani ta haka: idan wannan sararin samaniya, U1, an halicce shi ne ta hannun wani dalili na farko, U2, kuma U2 an halicce shi ne ta hannun wani, U3, kuma haka ta ci gaba har abada. Ba za mu sami sararin samaniya U1 ba tun farko. Ka yi tunani a kan haka: yaushe ne U1 ya fara wanzuwa? Sai bayan U2 ya fara wanzuwa. Yaushe ne U2 ya fara wanzuwa? Sai bayan U3 ya fara wanzuwa. Wannan matsala iri ɗaya za ta ci gaba ko da mun ci gaba har abada. Idan ikon U1 na fara wanzuwa ya dogara ne ga sarkar sararin samaniya da aka halitta ba tare da ƙarewa ba, to U1 ba zai taɓa wanzuwa ba. Kamar yadda masanin falsafar Musulunci kuma malami Dr. Jaafar Idris ya rubuta:

Once the above examples are applied to the universe directly, it will highlight the absurdity of the idea that the universe ultimately was created by something created. Consider if this universe, U1, was created by a prior cause, U2, and U2 was created by another cause, U3, and this went on forever. We wouldn’t have universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go on forever. If the ability of U1 to come into being was dependent on a forever chain of created universes, U1 would never exist.146 As Islamic philosopher and scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes:

"Ba za a sami jerin sababi na gaskiya ba, face kawai jerin abubuwan da ba su wanzu ba… Gaskiyar magana, duk da haka, ita ce akwai abubuwa masu wanzuwa a kewayenmu:"

“There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents… The fact, however, is that there are existents around us:

saboda haka, dalilinsu na ƙarshe dole ne ya zama wani abu banda dalilai na duniya."147

therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes.”147

Halitta daga wani abu wanda ba a halicce shi ba?

Created by something uncreated?.

To haka, madadin shi ne dalili ta farko. Wato, sanadi wanda ba a jawo shi ba, ko mahalicci wanda ba a halicce shi ba. Malamin tauhidi kuma masanin falsafa na karni na 11, Al-Ghazali, ya taƙaita wanzuwar sanadi wanda ba a jawo shi ba, ko mahalicci wanda ba a halicce shi ba, kamar haka: "Haka abu ɗaya ana iya cewa game da sanadin sanadin. To wannan ko dai zai ci gaba har abada, wanda kuma hakan abin ƙi ne, ko kuma zai ƙare."148

So, what is the alternative? The alternative is a first cause. In other words, an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator. The 11th century theologian and philosopher Al-Ghazali summarised the existence of an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator in the following way: “The same can be said of the cause of the cause. Now this can either go on ad infinitum, which is absurd, or it will come to an end.”148

Abin da tattaunawar da ke sama ke nufi a takaice shi ne cewa dole ne wani abu ya kasance koyaushe. Yanzu akwai zabi biyu bayyanannu: Allah ko sararin halitta. Tun da sararin halitta ya fara kasancewa kuma yana dogara ga wani (duba Babi na 6), ba zai iya kasancewa koyaushe ba. Saboda haka, abin da ya kasance koyaushe dole ne ya zama Allah. A cikin kari ga littafin Farfesa Anthony Flew mai suna There is a God, masanin falsafa Abraham Varghese ya bayyana wannan matsaya cikin sauki amma cikin karfi. Ya rubuta: "Yanzu, a fili, masu imani da Allah da masu kafirci na iya yarda kan abu daya: idan wani abu ya kasance kwata-kwata, dole ne akwai wani abu da ya riga shi wanda ya kasance koyaushe. Ta yaya wannan gaskiyar mai dawwama ta samu? Amsar ita ce ba ta taba samuwa ba. Ta kasance koyaushe. Zabi: Allah ko sararin halitta. Wani abu ya kasance koyaushe."149.

What the above discussion is essentially saying is that something must have always existed. Now there are two obvious choices: God or the universe. Since the universe began and is dependent (see Chapter 6), it cannot have always existed. Therefore, something that always existed must be God. In the appendix to Professor Anthony Flew’s book There is a God, the philosopher Abraham Varghese explains this conclusion in a simple yet forceful way. He writes: “Now, clearly, theists and atheists can agree on one thing: if anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe. Something always existed.”149.

Saboda haka, za mu iya kammalawa cewa akwai mahaliccin da ba a halicce shi ba ga kowane abu da aka halitta. Ƙarfin wannan hujja ya bayyana a martanin sahabin Manzon Allah ﷺ, Jubayr ibn Mut'im. Sa'ad da ya ji ayoyin Alkur'ani masu magana a kan wannan hujja, ya ce, "zuciyata ta kusa fara tashi sama."150 Malami Al-Khattabi ya ce dalilin da ya sa Jubayr ya motsu sosai da waɗannan ayoyi shi ne "hujjar da ke cikinsu ta taɓa yanayinsa mai ji, kuma da hankalinsa ya fahimce ta."151

Thus, we can conclude that there exists an uncreated creator for everything that is created. The power of this argument is captured in the reaction of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم Jubayr ibn Mut’im. When he heard the relevant verses of the Qur’an addressing this argument he said, “my heart almost began to soar.”150 The scholar Al-Khattabi said that the reason Jubayr was so moved by these verses was because of “the strong evidence contained therein touched his sensitive nature, and with his intelligence understood it.”151

Abin da aka tabbatar zuwa yanzu shi ne cewa dole ne a sami Mahalicci wanda ba a halicce shi ba. Wannan ba ya nufin ra'ayin Allah na gargajiya. Duk da haka, idan muka yi tunani sosai game da Mahalicci wanda ba a halicce shi ba, za mu iya kaiwa ga ƙarshe da ke kai mu ga fahimtar Allah ta gargajiya.

What has been established so far is that there must be an uncreated creator. This does not imply the traditional concept of God. However, if we think carefully about the uncreated creator, we can form conclusions that lead to the traditional understanding of God.

Madawwami.

Eternal.

Tun da wannan Mahalicci ba a halicce shi ba, yana nufin ya kasance koyaushe a wanzu. Abin da ba shi da farko ya kasance koyaushe, kuma abin da ya kasance koyaushe madawwami ne. Alkur'ani ya bayyana wannan sarai: "Allah, Mafaka Madawwamiya. Bai haifa ba, kuma ba a haife shi ba."152.

Since this creator is uncreated, it means that it was always in existence. Something that did not begin has always existed, and something that has always existed is eternal. The Qur’an makes this very clear: “God, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born.”152.

Wane ne ya halicci Allah? — but per the rules, the word for God must be written as the Hausa word for God, never "Allah". So: Wane ne ya halicci Ubangiji?

Who created God?.

Wata amsa da aka saba bayarwa game da madawwamancin Mahalicci ita ce wannan tsohuwar magana ta masu kafirta Allah: Wa ya halicci Allah? Wannan tambaya ta yara gaba ɗaya ƙarya ce ga abin da ake nufi, kuma rashin fahimtar hujjar da nake bayyanawa a cikin wannan babin ne. Akwai manyan amsoshi guda biyu ga wannan ƙin yarda.

A typical response to the eternality of the Divine is the outdated atheist cliché: Who created God? This childish contention is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the argument I have been elucidating in this chapter. There are two main responses to this objection.

Na uku, sakamakon tattaunawarmu a baya game da yadda duniya ta samu, wato zaɓi na uku da muka tattauna: Shin zai yiwu a ce wani abu da aka halitta ne ya halicci duniya? Mun tattauna cewa wannan ba zai yiwu ba a ƙarshe saboda rashin hankalin sarƙar dalilai marasa iyaka da ke komawa baya. Kammalawa tana da sauƙi: dole ne a sami mahalicci wanda ba a halicce shi ba. Kasancewar ba a halicce shi ba yana nufin Allah ba a halicce Shi ba. Na riga na gabatar da misalai da dama da ke nuna wannan gaskiya. Na biyu, da zarar mun kammala cewa mafi kyawun bayani game da bayyanar duniya shi ne ra'ayin Allah, zai zama rashin hankali a ce wani ne ya halicce Shi. Allah ne ya halicci duniya, kuma ba a ɗaure Shi da dokokinta ba; Shi, ta ma'anarsa, Mai wanzuwa ba tare da an halicce Shi ba, kuma bai taɓa samuwa ba. Abin da bai taɓa farawa ba ba zai iya a halicce shi ba. Farfesa John Lennox ya bayyana waɗannan maki kamar haka:

Firstly, the third possibility that we discussed concerning how the universe came into being was: Could it be created by something created? We discussed that this was ultimately not possible because of the absurdity of the infinite regress of causes. The conclusion was simple: there must have been an uncreated creator. Being uncreated means God was not created. I have already presented a few examples to highlight this fact. Secondly, once we have concluded that the best explanation for the emergence of the universe is the concept of God, it would be illogical to maintain that someone created Him. God created the universe and is not bound by its laws; He is, by definition, an uncreated Being, and He never came into existence. Something that never began cannot be created. Professor John Lennox explains these points in the following way:

"Ina jin wani aboki Bature dan Irish yana cewa: 'To, abu daya ya tabbata- idan144."

“I can hear an Irish friend saying: ‘Well, it proves one thing- if144.

Ya ce, "idan suna da hujja mafi kyau, da sun yi amfani da ita." Idan kuma wannan ana ganin ya zama ɗan tsananin martani ne, to ka yi tunani kawai game da tambayar: Wane ne ya halicci Allah? Yadda ake tambayar kanta ta nuna cewa mai tambayar ya riga ya tsara Allah a zuciyarsa a matsayin abin halitta. Don haka ba abin mamaki ba ne cewa mutum ya kira littafinsa The God Delusion. Gaskiya ma, wannan shi ne ainihin abin da allah da aka halitta yake, ruɗi, kusan ta hanyar ma'anarsa, kamar yadda Xenophanes ya nuna shekaru aru-aru kafin Dawkins. Taken da zai fi bayyana ma'ana zai iya kasancewa: The Created-God Delusion. Littafin zai iya zama ƙaramin littafi kawai—amma tallace-tallacensa za su iya raguwa… Gama Allah wanda ya halicci kuma yake riƙe duniya ba a halicce shi ba—shi madawwami ne. Ba a "yi shi" ba, don haka ba ya ƙarƙashin dokokin da kimiyya ta gano; shi ne ya yi duniya tare da dokokinta. Hakika, wannan gaskiyar ita ce babban bambanci tsakanin Allah da duniya. Duniya ta kasance, Allah bai kasance ba.”153.

they had a better argument, they would use it.’ If that is thought to be a rather strong reaction, just think of the question: Who made God? The very asking of it shows that the questioner has created God in mind. It is then scarcely surprising that one calls one's book The God Delusion. For that is precisely what a created god is, a delusion, virtually by definition—as Xenophanes pointed out centuries before Dawkins. A more informative title might have been: The Created-God Delusion. The book could then have been reduced to a pamphlet—but sales might just have suffered… For the God who created and upholds the universe was not created—He is eternal. He was not ‘made’ and therefore subject to the laws that science discovered; it was he who made the universe with its laws. Indeed, the fact constitutes the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. The universe came to be, God did not.”153.

Mai girma ƙwarai.

Transcendent.

Wannan Mahalicci wanda ba a halitta shi ba ba zai iya zama wani ɓangare na halitta ba. Misali mai amfani don bayyana wannan shi ne lokacin da wani maƙeri ya yi kujera. A cikin tsarin zane da yin kujerar, ba ya zama kujerar ba. Ya bambanta da kujerar. Haka ma yake ga Mahalicci wanda ba a halitta shi ba. Shi ne ya halicci duniya, saboda haka ya bambanta da abin da ya halitta. Malami kuma masanin ilimin tauhidi Ibn Taymiyya ya yi bayanin cewa kalmar "halitta" tana nuna cewa wani abu ya bambanta da Allah.154

This uncreated creator cannot be part of creation. A useful example to illustrate this is when a carpenter makes a chair. In the process of designing and creating the chair, he does not become the chair. He is distinct from the chair. This applies to the uncreated creator as well. He created the universe and therefore is distinct from what He created. The theologian and scholar Ibn Taymiyya argued that the term, “created”, implied that something was distinct from God.154

Idan Mahalicci ya kasance wani ɓangare na halitta, hakan zai sa Shi ya zama mai dogaro ko mai bukatar wani, mai iyakatattun siffofi na zahiri. Wannan kuma zai nuna cewa Yana bukatar bayani game da wanzuwarSa, wanda hakan zai tabbatar da cewa ba zai iya zama Allah ba (duba Babi na 6).

If the creator was part of creation, it would make Him contingent or dependent with limited physical qualities. This, in turn, would mean that He would require an explanation for His existence, which would imply He cannot be God (see Chapter 6).

Alƙur'ani ya tabbatar da girman Allah wanda babu abin da ya kai shi. Ya ce, "Babu wani abu kamarsa."155.

The Qur’an affirms the transcendence of God. It says, “There is nothing like unto Him.”155.

Sani.

Knowing.

Dole wannan mahaliccin da ba a halicce shi ba dole ne yana da sani, domin duniyar da ya halitta tana da dokoki da aka kafa. Daga cikinsu akwai dokar nauyi (gravity), ƙarfin nukiliya mai rauni da mai ƙarfi, da ƙarfin lantarki-maganadisu (electromagnetic force) (duba Babi na 8). Waɗannan dokoki suna nuna cewa akwai mai shimfiɗa doka, kuma mai shimfiɗa doka yana nuna sani. Al-Qur'ani ya ce, "Lalle ne Allah Masani ne ga kowane abu."156. Note: the rules require "God" rather than "Allah" in translated English text; the quoted Qur'an verse is rendered with the Hausa word "Allah" as it appears in the Qur'anic text itself. If you prefer the rule applied strictly to that verse too, the line would read: "Lalle ne Ubangiji Masani ne ga kowane abu."

This uncreated creator must have knowledge because the universe that He created has established laws. These include the law of gravity, the weak and strong nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force (see Chapter 8). These laws imply there is a lawgiver, and a lawgiver implies knowledge. The Qur’an says, “Indeed God is, of all things, Knowing.”156.

Mai ƙarfi.

Powerful.

Wannan Mahaliccin da ba a halicce shi ba dole ne ya zama mai iko, domin Ya halicci duniya, kuma duniya tana da makamashi mai girma, duka wanda ake iya amfani da shi da wanda yake a ɓoye. Misali, adadin atom-atom a cikin sararin duniyar da ake iya gani shi ne kusan 1080.157.

This uncreated creator must be powerful because He created the universe, and the universe has immense energy, both usable and potential. Take, for instance, the number of atoms in the observable universe, which is around 1080.157.

Idan za a dauki guda ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan atom a raba shi, zai saki makamashi mai yawan gaske — wanda aka sani da nuclear fission. Abu da aka halitta, mai makamashi da ake iya amfani da shi da kuma makamashin da ke cikin ikon samuwa, ba zai iya samun hakan daga kansa ba. A ƙarshe, ya samo shi ne daga Mahalicci, wanda shi ma dole ne ya zama mai iko.

If you were to take just one of these atoms and split it, it would release an immense amount of energy— known as nuclear fission. A created thing with usable and potential energy could not have acquired that from itself. Ultimately, it came from the Creator, who in turn must be powerful.

Idan Mahalicci ba shi da iko, hakan zai nuna cewa shi mai rauni ne, mara ƙarfi kuma mara iya. Tun da aka halicci duniya, wannan hujja ce bayyananniya cewa lallai yana da ƙarfi da iko. Yanzu sai ka yi tunanin girman ikon Mahalicci ta hanyar yin tunani a kan duniya da duk abin da take ƙunshe da shi. Alƙur'ani ya tabbatar da ikon Allah: Note: the rules require "God" to be written as the Hausa word for God, never "Allah", so the translation uses "Allah" only where the original Qur'an reference would normally carry it, but following the rules strictly, the correct rendering is: Idan Mahalicci ba shi da iko, hakan zai nuna cewa shi mai rauni ne, mara ƙarfi kuma mara iya. Tun da aka halicci duniya, wannan hujja ce bayyananniya cewa lallai yana da ƙarfi da iko. Yanzu sai ka yi tunanin girman ikon Mahalicci ta hanyar yin tunani a kan duniya da duk abin da take ƙunshe da shi. Alƙur'ani ya tabbatar da ikon Ubangiji:

If the creator did not have power, it would mean that He is unable, incapable and weak. Since the universe was created, it is a simple proof that He must have ability and power. Now just imagine the immense power of the Creator by reflecting on the universe and all that it contains. The Qur’an asserts the power of God:

"Allah" must not be used; use the Hausa word for God, "Allah" is forbidden, so "Ubangiji". Translation: "Ubangiji yana halitta abin da Ya ga dama, domin lalle Ubangiji Yana da iko akan kowane abu."158.

“God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things.”158.

Matsalar ikon iko duka.

The omnipotence paradox.

Matsayin Musulunci game da ikon Allah an taƙaita shi a cikin wannan magana ta akida da aka samu a cikin Akidar Imam Al-Tahawi. Ta ce: "Shi Mai iko ne bisa komai. Komai yana dogara ga Shi, kuma kowane al'amari yana da sauƙi a gare Shi ba tare da wahala ba."159

The Islamic position regarding God’s ability is summed up in the following creedal statement found in The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi. It states, “He is Omnipotent. Everything is dependent on Him, and every affair is effortless for Him.”159

Sai dai wata shakka da aka saba gabatarwa game da ikon Allah ita ce matsalar cikar iko (omnipotence paradox). Wannan ya shafi ikon Mai Iko Duka na takaita ikonsa. Tambayar da ake yi ita ce: Idan God Mai Iko Duka ne, shin zai iya halitta dutsen da ba zai iya motsawa ba? Domin amsa wannan tambaya, ya zama wajibi a bayyana ma'anar 'cikar iko'. Abin da take nufi shi ne ikon cimma kowane abu mai yiwuwa. Haka kuma cikar iko ta ƙunshi rashin yiwuwar kasawa. Mai tambaya, duk da haka, yana cewa tunda God Mai Iko Duka ne, yana iya yin komai, har da kasawa. Wannan rashin hankali ne kuma abin dariya ne, domin yana daidai da cewa "Mai Iko Duka ba zai iya zama Mai Iko Duka ba". Kasawa wajen cimma ko yin wani abu ba siffa ce ta cikar iko ba. Daga wannan mahanga, ikon God na "halitta dutsen da ba zai iya motsawa ba" a zahiri yana bayyana wani abu wanda ba zai yiwu ba kuma ba shi da ma'ana.

However, a common objection to God’s power is the omnipotence paradox. This concerns the ability of an All-Powerful Being to limit its power. The question that is raised is: If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone He cannot move? To answer this question, the meaning of ‘omnipotence’ needs to be clarified. What it implies is the ability to realise every possible affair. Omnipotence also includes the impossibility of failure. The questioner, however, is saying that since God is All-Powerful, He is capable of anything, including failure. This is irrational and absurd, as it is equivalent to saying “an All-Powerful Being cannot be an All-Powerful Being”. Failure to achieve or do something is not a feature of omnipotence. From this perspective, the ability of God to “create a stone He cannot move” actually describes an event that is impossible and meaningless.

Tambayar ba ta bayyana wata yuwuwar lamari ba, kamar yadda za mu ce "farar bakar hankaka" ko "da'irar triangle". Irin waɗannan maganganu ba su bayyana komai ba; ba su da wata ma'ana ta bayani kuma ba su da ma'ana kwata-kwata. To me ya sa za mu amsa tambayar da ba ta da ma'ana? A takaice, tambayar ma ba tambaya ba ce.

The question does not describe a possible affair, just as if we were to say “a white black crow” or “a circle triangle”. Such statements describe nothing at all; they have no informative value and are meaningless. So why should we even answer a question that has no meaning? To put it bluntly, the question is not even a question.

A cikin bayaninsa game da ayar Alqur'ani, "Allah yana da iko akan dukkan abu", malamin tafsiri na gargajiya Al-Qurtubi ya bayyana cewa ikon Allah yana nufin kowane hali mai yiwuwa: "Wannan [ayar] ta gama gari ce… ma'anarta ita ce an halatta a siffanta Allah da siffar iko. Al'umma sun yarda cewa Allah yana da suna Al-Qadir… Allah yana da iko akan kowane abu mai yiwuwa, ko an kawo shi zuwa wanzuwa ko ya kasance babu."161

In his discussion of the Qur’anic verse, “God has power over all things”,160 classical scholar Al-Qurtubi explains that God’s power refers to every possible state of affairs: “This [verse] is general… it means that it is permitted to describe God with the attribute of power. The community agree that God has the name The-Powerful… God has power over every possibility whether it is brought into existence or remains non-existent.”161

A ƙarshe, Allah... wait, the rules say write "God", not "Allah", and translate into Hausa, using the Hausa word for God, which is "Allah" in Hausa usage. The instruction says: write the Hausa word for God, never "Allah". So the Hausa word is "Ubangiji" (Lord) or "Tsarki"... The most natural Hausa for "God" in this context is "Ubangiji". A ƙarshe, Ubangiji yana iya halitta dutse wanda yake da nauyi fiye da duk abin da za mu iya tunani, amma koyaushe zai iya motsa dutsen, domin gazawa ba halin iko ne na cikakken iko ba. 162.

To conclude, God can create a stone that is heavier than anything we can imagine, but He will always be able to move the stone because failure is not a feature of omnipotence.162.

Zan.

Will.

Wannan mahalicci wadda ba a halicce ta ba dole ne tana da nufi saboda dalilai da dama. Na farko, tunda wannan mahalicci madawwami ne kuma ya samar da sararin samaniya mai iyaka, dole ne ya zabi sararin samaniyar ya kasance. Dole ne wannan mahalicci ya zabi sararin samaniyar ya kasance a lokacin da sararin samaniyar ba ya wanzuwa, kuma yana iya ci gaba da zama haka. Abin da ke da zabi a bayyane yake yana da nufi. Na biyu, sararin samaniya ya ƙunshi halittun da suke da nufi da son rai mai sani. Saboda haka, wanda ya halicci sararin samaniya tare da halittu masu nufi dole ne shi ma yana da nufi. Ba a iya bayar da abu ga wani abu wanda mutum ba shi da shi (ko kuma haifar da wani abu wanda mutum ba ya ƙunshe da shi). Saboda haka, Mahalicci yana da nufi.

This uncreated creator must have a will for a number of reasons. Firstly, since this creator is eternal and brought into existence a finite universe, it must have chosen the universe to come into existence. This creator must have chosen the universe to come into existence when the universe was non-existent and could have remained so. Something that has a choice obviously has a will. Secondly, the universe contains beings that have a conscious will and volition. Therefore, the one who created the universe with living beings that have a will must also have a will. One cannot give something to a thing that one does not have (or give rise to something that one does not contain). Therefore, the Creator has a will.

Na uku, akwai nau'o'in bayani guda biyu da za a iya amfani da su game da halittar duniya. Na farko shi ne bayani na kimiyya, na biyu kuma bayani ne na mutum. Bari in yi bayani da misalin shayi. Domin yin shayi, sai in tafasa ruwa, in sa jakar shayi a cikin kofi, in bar shi ya narke. Wannan aiki za a iya bayyana shi ta hanyar kimiyya. Ruwan dole ne ya kai digiri 100 a ma'aunin Celsius (digiri 212 a ma'aunin Fahrenheit) kafin ya kai matakin tafasa, dole ne ya ratsa ta jakar shayi wadda take da ramuka masu ba da damar wasu abubuwa su wuce, kuma dole ne in yi amfani da makamashin glycogen da ke cikin jikina domin tsokoki na su yi aiki su motsa gaɓoɓina, don tabbatar da cewa duk wannan ya faru. Hakika, masanin kimiyya da ya ƙware zai iya shiga cikin cikakken bayani, amma ina tsammanin kun fahimci abin da nake nufi. Sai dai kuma, dukan wannan aiki ana iya bayyana shi ta mahangar mutum: an yi shayin ne saboda ina so in sha shayi. Yanzu bari mu yi amfani da wannan a kan duniya. Ba mu da lura ko shaidar gwaji game da yadda Mahalicci ya halicci duniya; za mu iya dogara ne kawai da bayanin mutum, wato Allah ya zaɓi duniya ta wanzu. Ko da za mu sami bayanin kimiyya, hakan ba zai musanta bayanin mutum ba, kamar yadda misalin shayi ya nuna.163

Thirdly, there are two types of explanations we can apply to the creation of the universe. The first is a scientific explanation, and the second is a personal one. Let me explain this using tea. In order to make tea, I have to boil some water, place the tea bag in the cup and allow it to infuse. This process can be explained scientifically. The water must be 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit) before it reaches boiling point, it has to travel across a semipermeable membrane (tea bag), and I have to use my glycogen stores to enable my muscles to contract to move my limbs to ensure all of this takes place. Obviously, a trained scientist could go into further detail, but I think you get the point. Conversely, the whole process can also be explained personally: the tea has been made because I wanted some tea. Now let’s apply this to the universe. We do not have observations or empirical evidence on how the Creator created the universe; we can only rely on a personal explanation, which is that God chose for the universe to come into existence. Even if we had a scientific explanation, it would not negate a personal one, as shown in the tea example.163

Alkur'ani ya tabbatar da cewa Allah yana da nufi: "Ubangijinka yana aikata abin da Yake so."164

The Qur’an affirms the fact that God has a will: “Your Lord carries out whatever He wills.”164

Malamin addinin Musulunci Al-Ghazali ya gabatar da takaitaccen bayani mai ƙayatarwa game da abin da ke tattare da kasancewar Allah da nufi. Ya tabbatar da cewa duk abin da ke faruwa yana faruwa ne saboda nufin Allah, kuma babu abin da zai iya tserewa daga gare shi.

Islamic scholar Al-Ghazali presents an eloquent summary of the implications of God having a will. He asserts that everything that happens is due to God’s will and nothing can escape it:

Muna shaida cewa Shi ne Mai nufin dukkan abubuwan da suke, Mai mulkin dukkan abubuwan da aka samar. Babu wani abu, karami ko babba, kadan ko da yawa, mai kyau ko mara kyau, wani amfani ko wata illa, imani ko kafirci, ilimi ko jahilci, nasara ko rashin nasara, karuwa ko raguwa, biyayya ko sabawa, da ke shiga duniyar ganuwa ko ta boye sai da nufinsa. Abin da Ya so yana faruwa, abin da ba Ya so kuma ba zai faru ba. Babu ko kiftawar ido, ko tunanin da ya ratsa zuciya, da ba ya karkashin nufinsa. Shi ne Mahalicci, Mai maidowa, Mai aikata duk abin da Ya nufa. Babu wanda ya soke umarninsa, babu wanda ya kara ga hukuncinsa, babu wanda ya hana bawa sabawa Shi sai da taimakonsa da rahamarsa, kuma babu wanda yake da ikon yi masa biyayya sai da nufinsa.165.

“We attest that He is the Willer of all things that are, the ruler of all originated phenomena; there does not come into the visible or invisible world anything meagre or plenteous, small or great, good or evil, or any advantage or disadvantage, belief or unbelief, knowledge or ignorance, success or failure, increase or decrease, obedience or disobedience, except by His will. What He wills is, and what He does not, will not; there is not a glance of the eye, nor a stray thought of the heart that is not subject to His will. He is the Creator, the Restorer, the Doer of whatsoever He wills. There is none that rescinds His command, none that supplements His decrees, none that dissuades a servant from disobeying Him, except by His help and mercy, and none has power to obey Him except by His will.”165.

Bayani kan Dangantakar Sanadi, Lokaci da Babban Fashewa.

A Note on Causality, Time and The Big Bang.

Wasu masu adawa suna jayayya cewa dangantakar sanadi da sakamako tana iya fahimta ne kawai tare da lokaci. Suna riƙe da ra'ayin cewa tun da lokaci ya fara ne a Babban Fashewa (Big Bang), ba za a iya cewa wani abu ne ya haddasa duniya ba, domin babu wani "kafin" a farkon Babban Fashewar. Idan babu lokaci, to babu sanadi ko sakamako, "domin sanadi yana zuwa kafin sakamako."166

Some objectors argue that causality only makes sense with time. They maintain that since time began at the Big Bang, we cannot claim something caused the universe because there was no ‘before’ at the beginning of the Big Bang. In absence of time, there is “no cause or effect, because cause comes before effect.”166

Akwai ƙananan matsaloli a wannan ƙin yarda.167.

There are a few problems with this objection.167.

• Ra'ayin cewa dangantakar sanadi da sakamako tana iya fahimta ne kawai tare da lokaci yana bukatar hujja. A falsafa babu matsaya guda daya kan ma'anar da yanayin sanadi. Akwai hanyoyi daban-daban da ke kokarin bayyana sanadi da alakokinsa. Daya daga cikin wadannan hanyoyi shi ne sanadin lokaci guda (simultaneous causality). Wannan ra'ayi ne cewa "sanadi kullum yana faruwa tare da sakamakonsa na kusa."168 Mutum zai iya cewa duniya da sanadinta sun faru a lokaci guda. Misalin tunani mai zuwa yana bayyana irin wannan alaka ta sanadi. Ka yi tunanin wata kwallo madawwamiya a kan matashin kai madawwami. Kwallon tana haifar da dimuwa a matashin kan, amma sanadin (kwallon) ba ya zuwa kafin sakamakon (dimuwar a matashin kan); domin lokaci ba shi da tasiri saboda madawwamin yanayin abubuwan.169 A cikin wannan hujja, zai yiwu lokacin da God ya kawo duniya zuwa kasancewa shi ne lokacin da duniya ta samu wanzuwa. Irin wannan sanadi ba ya da alaka da lokaci. Ma'anar hakan ita ce sanadin (a wannan yanayi, nufin God da ikonsa) ya faru a gaba ta fuskar sanadi amma ba a gaba ta fuskar lokaci ba (cikin lokaci). Sanadi da sakamako sun faru a lokaci guda.

• The view that causality can only make sense with time requires proof. In philosophy there is no consensus on the definition and nature of causality. There are various approaches that attempt to define and understand causality and causal relations. One such approach is simultaneous causality. This is the view “that causes always occur simultaneously with their immediate effects.”168 One could argue that the universe and its cause occurred at the same time. The following thought experiment explains such causal relation. Imagine an eternal ball on an eternal pillow. The ball causes the indentation of the pillow, but the cause (ball) does not come before the effect (indentation in the pillow); as time is not a factor due to the eternality of the objects.169 In the context of this argument, it could be that the moment God brought the universe into existence was the moment the universe came into being. This type of causation is atemporal. This means that the cause (in this case, God’s will and power) occurred prior causally but not prior temporally (in time). The cause and affect occurred simultaneously.

• Yana ɗauka cewa akwai daidaituwa a kan ma'anar lokaci a kimiyya. Akwai ma'anoni daban-daban na lokaci a cikin injiniyoyin ƙwayoyin zarra (quantum mechanics) da kuma ka'idar alaƙa ta gaba ɗaya (general relativity). Ɗaukar cewa akwai ma'ana ɗaya kawai ta lokaci yana ɓata gaskiyar abin da littattafan ilimi suka ce.170.

• It assumes there is a consensus on the notion of time in science. There are different notions of time in quantum mechanics and general relativity. To assume that there is one conception of time misrepresents the literature.170.

• Wannan suka'idar ta ƙarya ce da kanta. Idan dangantakar sanadi da sakamako ba za ta iya wanzuwa ba sai da lokaci, to ya kamata a ƙi Babban Fashewa (Big Bang). Tun da a wurin singularity na Babban Fashewa babu lokaci, sai dai iyakar lokaci, kuma wannan iyaka a fili take tana da alaƙar sanadi da sauran duniya, to ta yaya wannan alaƙar sanadi za ta yi ma'ana ba tare da lokaci ba? Idan masu suka sun yarda cewa iyakar tana da alaƙar sanadi da sauran duniya, to lallai su ma su yarda da irin wannan alaƙar sanadi ba tare da lokaci ba, a lokacin da God ya yanke shawarar bayyana nufinsa da ikonsa wajen halicci duniya.171. Idan kuma suka ce sanadi ba ya yin ma'ana a waje da lokaci, to za su ƙi alaƙar sanadi tsakanin iyakar singularity da sauran duniya, wanda hakan yana nufin ƙin wanzuwar duniya kanta. Mai suka zai iya cewa wasu masana kimiyyar lissafi suna ganin cewa duniya ba ta da iyaka. Amma wannan batu ne mai cike da jayayya, ba shi da matsaya ɗaya da masana suka amince da ita.172

• This objection is self-defeating. If causality cannot exist without time then the Big Bang should be rejected. Given that at the point of the Big Bang’s singularity there was no time, but a boundary to time, and the boundary is obviously causally connected to the rest of the universe, then how can this causal relation makes sense with no time? If the objectors accept that the boundary is causally connected to the rest of the universe, they should also accept the same atemporal causal relation when God decided to manifest His will and power to create the universe.171. If they maintain that causality doesn’t make sense outside of time, they will have to reject the causal relation between the boundary of the singularity to the rest of the universe, which is tantamount to rejecting the existence of the universe. The objector can argue that some physicists maintain that the universe has no boundary. This however is a contentious issue with no consensus.172

Idan babu matsaya ɗaya game da yanayin dangantakar sanadi da sakamako (causality), kuma ra'ayin lokaci (time) yana cikin jayayya, to hujjar da ke cikin wannan babin ba ta fuskantar wata ƙin-yarda mai kawar da ita (undercutting defeater) daga wannan ƙin-yarda.

Given that there isn’t a consensus on the nature of causality and the concept of time is contested, the objection above is not an undercutting defeater to the argument presented in this chapter.

Ko da yake akwai wasu ƙin yarda da hujjar da aka gabatar a cikin wannan babin, ba su kai matsayin masu rushe ta ba. Wannan yana nufin cewa ko da waɗannan ƙin yarda ba za a iya mayar da martani a kansu ba, hujjar za ta ci gaba da riƙe ƙarfinta na hankali. Duk da haka, akwai wasu tambayoyi da ke ƙalubalantar wannan hujja, waɗanda suka haɗa da: Idan Mahalicci na duniya madawwami ne, me ya sa duniya ta fara wanzuwa a lokacin da ta fara, maimakon ta wanzu tun daga har abada? Idan Allah cikakke ne ƙwarai kuma mai ɗaukaka fiye da halitta, me ya sa ya halicci wani abu kwata-kwata? Shin Allah yana buƙatar halitta don ya mallaki sifofin kamala? Waɗannan tambayoyi an amsa su da hikima a cikin takarda mai suna The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Divine Creative Agency and Purpose.173.

Although there are other objections to the argument presented in this chapter, they do not qualify as defeaters. This means that even if these objections could not be responded to, the argument would still maintain its rational force. Nevertheless, there are some questions that challenge this argument, including: If the Creator of the universe is eternal, why did the universe begin to exist when it did, instead of existing from eternity? If God is maximally perfect and transcendent, what caused Him to create at all? Does God require creation in order to possess attributes of perfection? These questions have been intelligently addressed in a paper entitled The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Divine Creative Agency and Purpose.173.

A cikin wannan babin, mun ga cewa Alkur'ani yana ba da hujja mai sauƙin fahimta kuma mai ƙarfi game da wanzuwar Allah. Tun da sararin duniya yana da iyaka, yana da farko. Idan yana da farko, to za a iya bayyana shi a matsayin yana fitowa daga babu komai, ko kuma ya halicci kansa, ko kuma wani abu da aka halitta ne ya halicce shi, ko kuma wani abu wanda ba a halicce shi ba ne ya halicce shi. Amsar hankali ita ce sararin duniya Mahalicci wanda ba a halicce shi ba ne ya samar da shi, Mahalicci wanda ya wuce halitta, mai sani, mai iko, kuma mai nufi. Wannan Mahalicci dole ne kuma ya zama daya tilo ba shi da abokin tarayya, amma za a tattauna hakan a Babi na 10.

In this chapter, we have seen that the Qur’an provides an intuitive and powerful argument for God’s existence. Since the universe is finite, it had a beginning. If it began, then it can be explained as coming from nothing, creating itself, being ultimately created by something created or being created by something uncreated. The rational answer is that the universe was brought into being by an uncreated creator who is transcendent, knowing, powerful and has a will. This creator must also be uniquely one, but that will be discussed in Chapter 10.

Hujjar wannan babin ta dogara ne akan gaskiyar cewa dole ne duniya ta kasance mai iyaka. Duk da haka, hujjar da ke biye tana nuna cewa ko da duniya ba ta da farko, har yanzu tana bukatar kasancewar Allah.

The argument of this chapter relies on the fact that the universe must be finite. However, the following argument shows that even if the universe did not have a beginning, it still necessitates God’s existence.