Mafi kyau a fara da ma'ana. Ma'anar kalmar "atheism" a harshen asali tana nufin 'ba mai imani da Allah ba' (wato Allah a nan yana nufin 'God'); wato, mutumin da bai yarda da wani Allah ko alloli ba. Harafin a yana nufin babu ko ba, kuma "theism", wanda ya fito daga kalmar theos, yana nufin 'imani da wanzuwar wani Allah ko alloli masu shiga cikin al'amuran duniya'. Dukkan kalmomin biyu sun fito daga harshen Girka, amma dogaro kawai da ma'anar kalmar ba ya isa ya bayyana abubuwan da wannan kalma ke nufi. To me ake nufi da rashin yarda da Allah ko alloli? Shin yana nuna cewa wanda ya bayyana kansa a matsayin mai ƙin Allah yana da hujjoji masu ƙarfi da ke goyon bayan ƙin Allah? Ko yana nufin cewa a yanzu ba a gamsu da wata hujjar masu imani da Allah ba? Ko kuma yana nufin cewa kawai ba ya yarda da wani Allah ko alloli?

The best place to start is with a definition. Atheism linguistically means ‘not a theist’; in other words, someone who does not believe in a God or gods. The prefix a means none or not, and theism, coming from the word theos, denotes a ‘belief in the existence of an intervening God or gods’. Both come from Greek, but relying on the literal meaning is not enough to explain the implications of the term. So what does disbelief in a God or gods imply? Does it indicate that the one who describes himself as an atheist has positive arguments in favour of atheism? Does it mean that they are currently not convinced by any theistic arguments? Or does it mean that they just do not believe in any gods?

Masana ilimi ba su cimma matsaya kan ma'anar kalmar "atheism" (kafirci ga Allah) ba, amma damuwata ba ta cikin rarrabe-rarrabe na falsafa ba. Mayar da hankalina kan abu mai amfani ne. Bari mu duba tambaya ta farko da na gabatar: Shin hakan yana nuna cewa wanda ya bayyana kansa a matsayin mai kafirci yana da hujjoji masu kyau da ke goyon bayan kafirci? A wannan ma'ana, mai kafirci mutum ne da ke yin da'awar ilimi, wato cewa babu God. Duk da haka, irin wannan da'awa tana bukatar tabbatarwa. Da'awar tabbatacciyar magana ce, kuma tana bukatar wata irin hujja don tallafa mata. Saboda haka, irin wannan mai kafirci dole ne ya kawo shaida ga matsayinsa.

Academics have not reached a consensus on a definition for atheism, but my concern is not with philosophical hair-splitting. My focus is a practical one.5 Let’s address the first question I raised: Does it indicate that the one who describes himself as an atheist has positive arguments in favour of atheism? In this sense, an atheist is someone who makes a knowledge claim—that there is no God. Nevertheless, such a claim requires justification. The claim is a positive assertion, and it requires some sort of argument to back it up. Therefore, this type of atheist must provide evidence for their position.

Wannan ya kai mu ga tambaya ta biyu: Shin yana nufin cewa mai kafirci a halin yanzu bai gamsu da wata hujja ta masu imani da Allah ba? Wannan da alama yana nisa daga kafirci, kuma yana shiga fagen rashin tabbaci (agnosticism). Riƙe irin wannan matsayi zai nuna cewa idan an gabatar da kyakkyawar hujja game da wanzuwar Allah, to lallai sai sun karɓa. A ƙarshe, akwai tambaya: Shin yana nufin mutumin nan kawai ba ya yarda da wani abin bautawa ne? Idan mai kafirci yana ƙin imani ne bisa zaɓi kawai, ba tare da wani bincike na hankali ba, to ta yaya hakan zai bambanta da kowane imani, ko imani da aljanu ko da taurari? Daga abin da na gani, tambayar da ake yi sau da yawa ita ce: Me ya sa kake ba ka yarda da kowane abin bautawa ba?

This leads us to the second question: Does it mean that the atheist is currently not convinced by any theistic arguments? This seems to be far removed from atheism and is entering into the realm of agnosticism. Holding such a position would imply that if a good argument were offered for God’s existence, they would have to accept it. Finally, we have the question: Does it mean that the person is someone who just does not believe in any gods? If an atheist disbelieves based on mere choice, in the absence of any rational investigation, then how does that differ from any other belief, whether it is the belief in fairies or astrology? From my experience, the question why do you believe in no gods?

Yaya ake amsa tambayar da suka yi: "Mene ne ra'ayinka game da Allah?" yana da kyau ka fara tattaunawa da wanda ba shi da imani (mai kafirci). Dangane da amsar da ka samu, za ka iya sanin ko mutumin agnostic ne, ko mai kafirci wanda ya yi imani ba tare da wata hujja mai kyau ba, ko kuma ya samu wata hujja da ke adawa da wanzuwar Allah. Idan mutum agnostic ne, mafi kyawun dabara ita ce ka ba shi dalilai masu gamsarwa na dalilin da ya sa kake imani da wanzuwar Allah. Idan mutum mai gaskiya ne, kuma hujjar da ka gabatar ta inganta, to ya kamata ya amince da wanzuwar Mahalicci. Idan kuwa ya yi imani da cewa babu wani Allah ba tare da wata hujja ba, to abin da nake ganin yana da amfani shi ne in sa shi ya yi tunani da kuma sake duba imaninsa. Zan tambaye shi: "Wace hujja kake da ita da za ta sa ka ƙi wanzuwar Allah?" Zan kuma nuna masa illolin da ke tattare da yin imani da wani abu bisa zaɓi kawai, ba tare da wani dalili ko tushe na hankali ba. Idan ya ce ya samu hujja da ke nuna babu Allah, zan roƙe shi ya kawo hujjar. A wannan yanayin, a matsayina na Musulmi, aikina ne in nuna cewa hujjar da ya kawo ba daidai ba ce ko kuma an fahimce ta ba daidai ba, sannan in gabatar da dalilin da ya sa Allah yake wanzuwa.

is an excellent conversation starter with an atheist (see Chapter 4). Depending on the response I receive, I clearly know if they are agnostics, atheists who believe without any positive evidence, or if they have found an argument against God. If they are agnostics, then the best strategy is to provide good reasons for why you believe God exists. If they are sincere, and the argument is valid, then they should accept the existence of the Divine. If they believe in no gods without evidence, then what I find useful is to get them to question and think about their beliefs. I would ask them: What evidence do you have to reject God’s existence? I would also show them the negative implications of just believing in something based on mere choice without any reasoning or intellectual basis. If they claim to have found evidence against God’s existence, I would ask them for the evidence. In that case, as a Muslim, it would be my job to show how the evidence they have provided is false or misunderstood, while at the same time presenting a case for why God does exist.

Ga yadda ake fahimtar kafirci a aikace. Da farko, akwai tabbaci mara kyau cewa mutum ba ya yarda da wani Allah ko alloli. Na biyu, akwai ra'ayin cewa hujjojin da ake bayarwa a yanzu don tabbatar da wanzuwar Allah ba su gamsarwa ba, wanda hakan ke nuna cewa mutum mai shakka ne. Na uku, akwai tabbaci mai kyau cewa babu alloli. Irin wannan tabbaci yana bukatar hujja. Daga abin da na gani, duk da muhawarorin da ake yi kan wannan batu, mutane da yawa masu kafirci suna zama kafirai ne kawai saboda ba su gamsu da wata hujja da ke goyon bayan Allah ba. Wannan yana nufin cewa yawancin masu kafirci ba kafirai ba ne da gaske, sai dai masu shakka a boye. Saboda haka akwai bege, kuma abin da ake bukata shi ne a gabatar da hujja mai kyau ga aminci ga Allah. Yana da muhimmanci a lura cewa ma'anonin aikace-aikace da na gabatar a nan ba su da iyaka ga biyu kawai; akwai matakai daban-daban na kowane nau'in masu kafirci. Haka kuma, ana iya bayyana masu kafirci da daya daga cikin wadannan ma'anoni ko hadin wasu daga cikinsu. Da ma abu ya kasance haka da sauki. Mutane ba injina ne na hankali ba. Wasu abubuwa da dama na motsin rai, zamantakewa, ruhaniya da tunani ne ke tantance irin ra'ayin rayuwa da mutum zai karba. Ba zai yiwu a warware dukkan abubuwan da ke kai mutum ga wasu shawarwari ko imani ba. Amma a ra'ayina, kafirci ba shawara ce ta hankali da kimiyya kawai ba. Akasin haka, kafirci yana da tushe mai zurfi a cikin ilimin halayyar dan Adam (ko da yake na san wannan ya shafi wasu masu kafirci ba duka ba).

So here’s a summary of what it practically means to be an atheist. Firstly, there is the negative assertion that one is simply a disbeliever in a God or gods. Secondly, there is the view that the current arguments for God’s existence are not convincing, which implies agnosticism. Finally, there is the positive assertion that there are no gods. Such an assertion requires an argument. From my experience, regardless of the hair-splitting debates on this issue, many atheists are atheists simply because they are not convinced by any argument in favour for the Divine. This means that most atheists are not really atheists at all, but closet agnostics. So there is hope, and all one has to do is offer a good argument for theism. It is important to note that the practical definitions I have proposed here are not binary; there are varying degrees of each type of atheist. Atheists can also be described as having one or a combination of these definitions. If only it was that easy. Human beings are not intellectual robots. An array of emotional, social, spiritual and psychological factors determines which worldview we adopt. Unravelling the vast number of variables that lead to certain decisions or beliefs is impossible. However, from my experience, atheism is not a strict intellectual decision born out of reason and science. On the contrary, atheism is deeply rooted in psychology (although I appreciate this applies to some and not all atheists).

Misotheism: ƙiyayyar Allah. Wait, the rules say never write "Allah", so the correct version is: Misotheism: ƙiyayyar Ubangiji.

Misotheism: hatred of God.

Duk da cewa ba a dauke shi a matsayin wani nau'i na kafirci ba, na yi tunanin zai zama abin sha'awa sosai in yi bayani kan wani nau'in ƙin Ubangiji daban. Maimakon ƙin kasancewar Allah (God), wannan mahangar ta ƙunshi ƙiyayya ga Allah (God) da fatan cewa da ba Shi ne ba. Ana kiran wannan misotheism, wanda ya samo asali daga kalmar Helenanci misos, ma'ana ƙiyayya, da theos, ma'ana Allah (God). Wannan tawaye na addini ya kasance yana ɓoye a cikin duhu. Lokaci ya yi da za a haskaka wannan zargi ga Allah (God), wanda wasu za su iya cewa shi ne tushen tunani na wasu nau'ikan kafirci. Mataimakin Farfesa Bernard Schweizer ya rubuta littafi kan wannan batu. Bayan ya yi nazari a kan ayyukan adabi na fitattun masana da marubuta da dama, ciki har da Algernon Charles Swinburne, Zora Neale Hurston, Rebecca West, Elie Wiesel, Peter Shaffer da Philip Pullman, ya kammala cewa suna da kokawa da tunanin Allah (God) mai tausayi da jin ƙai a cikin duniyar mugunta da wahala. Ya nuna cewa abin da ya motsa ƙiyayyarsu ga Allah (God) shi ne cewa "gabaɗaya suna motsawa ne ta hanyar abubuwan ƙwarin gwiwa na ɗan adam masu daraja".6

Although not considered a form of atheism, I thought it would be of great interest to elaborate on another type of rejection of the Divine. Rather than rejecting God’s existence, this perspective involves a hatred of God and a wish that He did not exist. Known as misotheism, coming from the Greek misos, meaning hatred, and theos meaning God, this religious rebellion has been lurking in the dark. It is time some light was shed on this denunciation of God, which some might argue is the psychological basis for certain types of atheism. Associate Professor Bernard Schweizer has written a book on the topic; after sifting through a number of literary works of prominent thinkers and writers, including Algernon Charles Swinburn, Zora Neale Hurston, Rebecca West, Elie Wiesel, Peter Shaffer and Philip Pullman, he concludes that they seem to struggle with the idea of a compassionate and merciful God in a world of evil and suffering. He indicates that the motivation for their hatred of God is due to being “generally motivated by admirable humanistic impulses”6

Schweizer kuma ya nuna cewa mai ƙin Allah (misotheist) mutum ne da yake cikin damuwa ta zuciya da ta tunani. Ya yi bayani cewa "gaskiya ne sarai cewa waɗanda suka ji rauni a zuciya, a hankali, da kuma a jiki su ne suka fi juya wa Allah baya."7

. Schweizer also indicates that the misotheist is emotionally and psychologically troubled. He argues that it is “quite true that the psychologically, emotionally, and physically wounded are most likely to turn away from God”7

"...kuma cewa "babu tabbas ko kaɗan cewa hanyoyin hidima mafi inganci za su taimaka wajen kashe wutar ƙyamar Allah ko toshe hanyar zuwa rashin imani ba."8

, and that it is “by no means certain that more effective forms of ministering would help douse the fires of misotheism or block the path to atheism”8

Ko da yake waɗannan masana da marubuta suna wakiltar nau'o'in masu ƙin Allah daban-daban, dukansu suna tambaya game da matsayin Allah a cikin wahalar ɗan adam:

. Although these thinkers and writers represent different types of misotheists, they all question God’s role in human suffering:

Halin mai ƙin Allah ya bambanta. A gare shi, rashin dacewar mugunta mai yaɗuwa da kamannin Allah mai alheri matsala ce ta gaske, ba kawai wata gardama ta tauhidi mai raba gashi ba. Masu ƙin Allah na gaskiya masu tuhumar Allah ne, kuma za su riƙe shi da alhakin mugunta ta kwatsam da wahala marar adalci. Don haka, masu kafirci da masu ƙin Allah suna zuwa ga tambayar rawar da Allah ke takawa a wahalar ɗan adam daga ɓangarori masu gaba da juna: mai kafirci zai ce mai ƙin Allah yana yin da'awar da ba ta inganta ba, wadda ta dogara ga tatsuniya. Ga mai ƙin Allah kansa, saboda kasancewarsa mumini, Allah ba akuyar sakayya ba ce, sai dai abokin tarayya ko mai haifar da mugunta.9

“The situation is different for the misotheist. To him, the incompatibility of widespread evil with the image of a benevolent God is a real problem, not merely a case of hair-splitting theological arguments. Misotheists are genuine accusers of God, and they will hold him accountable for random evil and undeserved suffering. Thus, atheists and misotheists come to the question of God’s role in human suffering from opposed directions: the unbeliever would say that the misotheist makes an invalid claim based on fiction. To the misotheist himself, precisely because he is a believer, God is not a scapegoat but an accomplice or an instigator of evil.”9

Schweizer’s study is quite nuanced. He categorises misotheism into agnostic misotheists, absolute misotheists and political misotheists. To summarise the professor’s main point, the misotheist is motivated by a key question: What has humanity done to deserve God and all the evil and suffering that He allows to occur? From my experience, I would contend that quite a few atheists are closet misotheists. One question to ask that usually testifies to this conclusion is: If God did exist, would you worship Him? (see Chapter 15). The response from many atheists that I have encountered would be no, and they frequently cite the amount of ‘unnecessary’ and ‘gratuitous’ evil and suffering in the world. Although I empathise with their concern and anguish at the suffering inflicted on fellow sentient beings, atheists and misotheists alike suffer from a veiled type of egocentrism. This means they make special effort not to see the world from any perspective other than through their own eyes. However, in doing so, they commit a type of emotional—or spiritual—fallacy. They anthropomorphise God and turn Him into a limited man. They assume that God must see things the way we see things, and therefore He should stop the evil. If He allows it to continue, He must be questioned and rejected.

Schweizer’s study is quite nuanced. He categorises misotheism into agnostic misotheists, absolute misotheists and political misotheists. To summarise the professor’s main point, the misotheist is motivated by a key question: What has humanity done to deserve God and all the evil and suffering that He allows to occur? From my experience, I would contend that quite a few atheists are closet misotheists. One question to ask that usually testifies to this conclusion is: If God did exist, would you worship Him? (see Chapter 15). The response from many atheists that I have encountered would be no, and they frequently cite the amount of ‘unnecessary’ and ‘gratuitous’ evil and suffering in the world. Although I empathise with their concern and anguish at the suffering inflicted on fellow sentient beings, atheists and misotheists alike suffer from a veiled type of egocentrism. This means they make special effort not to see the world from any perspective other than through their own eyes. However, in doing so, they commit a type of emotional—or spiritual—fallacy. They anthropomorphise God and turn Him into a limited man. They assume that God must see things the way we see things, and therefore He should stop the evil. If He allows it to continue, He must be questioned and rejected.

Idan aka kwatanta mutum da Allah, sai a bayyana rashin iyawarsu ta fahimtar abubuwa gaba ɗaya. Mai ƙin Allah (misotheist) zai iya cewa a nan cewa hakan na nufin mutum yana da tausayi fiye da Allah. Wannan kuma yana ƙara nuna rashin iyawarsa ta duba al'amura fiye da yadda yake gani, da kuma gazawarsa wajen fahimtar cewa ayyukan Allah da nufinsa suna cikin wata hikima ta Ubangiji wadda ba mu iya isa gare ta ba. Allah ba ya jin daɗin faruwar mugunta da wahala, kuma ba don yana jin daɗin ci gaban mugunta da wahala ba ne yake hana faruwarsu, sai dai saboda yana ganin abin da mu ba mu gani ba. Allah yana da cikakken hoto, mu kuwa muna da ɗigon pixel kawai. Fahimtar wannan yana kawo natsuwar ruhi da ta hankali, domin mumini ya san cewa a ƙarshe, duk abin da ke faruwa a duniya yana cikin hikimar Ubangiji mafi girma, wadda ta samo asali daga kyautatawar Ubangiji mafi girma. Ƙin karɓar wannan kuwa shi ne ainihin inda mai ƙin Allah ya fada cikin ruɗani na girman kai, son kai, kuma a ƙarshe, yanke ƙauna. Ya kasa jarabawa; ƙiyayyarsa ga Allah tana sa shi manta wanda Allah yake, kuma yana watsi da gaskiyar hikima, rahama da kyautatawar Allah (duba Babi na 11).

Comparing man with God exposes their inability to understand things holistically. The misotheist would probably at this point exclaim that this means man has more compassion than God. This further highlights their inability to see things from beyond their perspective, and reveals their failure to fathom that God’s actions and will are in line with a Divine reason that we cannot access. God is not content with the occurrence of evil and suffering. God does not stop these things from happening because He sees something we do not, not because He is content with evil and suffering to continue. God has the picture and we merely have a pixel. Understanding this facilitates spiritual and intellectual tranquillity because the believer understands that ultimately, all that occurs in the world is in line with a superior Divine wisdom that is based on superior Divine goodness. Refusing to accept this is actually where the misotheist falls into the quagmire of arrogance, egocentrism and ultimately, despair. He has failed the test; his hatred of God makes him forget who God is and dismiss the fact of Divine wisdom, mercy and goodness (see Chapter 11).

Atheism da Naturalism na Falsafa.

Atheism and Philosophical Naturalism.

Kafin in tattauna ma'anar kafirci (atheism) a cikin Musulunci, wannan babi wata dama ce mai kyau don gabatar da wani ra'ayi da za a yi ta ambatarsa a babi-babi da yawa na wannan littafi. Kamar kafirci, falsafar naturalism (philosophical naturalism) ta musanta Allah da abin da ke bayan halitta (supernatural). Saboda haka, ba abin mamaki ba ne cewa yawancin masu kafirci suna karɓar falsafar naturalism a matsayin hangen duniya (worldview). Falsafar naturalism ita ce ra'ayin cewa dukkan al'amuran da ke cikin duniya za a iya bayyana su ta hanyar hanyoyin zahiri (physical processes). Waɗannan hanyoyin zahiri makafi ne kuma ba su da hankali. Wato, ba a nufinsu da manufa ko makoma ba, kuma ba su iya ƙirƙira ko gane alaƙar hankali tsakanin abubuwa ko ra'ayoyi.

Ɗan Tarihin Rashin Imani a Taƙaice.

A brief history of atheism.

A cikin tarihin Musulunci, rashin imani da Allah ba babbar barazana ce ta zamantakewa da ta hankali ba sai bayan bayyanar ƙungiyar Dahriyya a ƙarni na takwas. Waɗannan masana falsafa masu bin hanyar gwaji ne, waɗanda suka yi imani cewa ilimi duka za a iya samunsa ne kawai ta hanyar gwaji da lura. Sun yi imani cewa sararin samaniya madawwami ne, kuma an haɗa shi da siffofi huɗu, waɗanda su ne ke da alhakin duk abin da ke wanzuwa. Sun yi jayayya cewa komai ya kasance koyaushe, kuma ba ya buƙatar wani mahalicci ko mai yin sa.14

In Islamic history Atheism was not a major social and intellectual threat until the emergence of the 8th century Dahriyya. These thinkers were empiricists who believed that all knowledge could only be acquired via the empirical method. They believed that the cosmos was eternal and composed of four qualities, which were responsible for everything that existed. They argued that everything had always existed and did not require any creator or maker.14

Bisa ga littafin Kitab al-Aghani na Faraj al-Isfahani, Abu Hanifa, sanannen malamin fiqhu kuma wanda ya kafa ɗaya daga cikin mazhabobin gargajiya, ya yi muhawara da wani Dahri a karni na 8. An san Abu Hanifa da cewa ya kayar da Dahriyya a cikin muhawarori na jama'a (duba Babi na 8). Malamai da dama na Musulunci sun mayar da martani ga ikirarin Dahriyya, ciki har da Al-Ghazali, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Jaḥiẓ, Muhammad b. Shabib, Ibn Qutayba, da Abu ‘Isa al-Warraq.15 A cikin littafin Al-Ghazali, Kimiyaʾ-yi sa‘adat, ya bayyana Dahriyya a matsayin masu rage komai, waɗanda ba su da cikakkiyar fahimtar duniya da manufarta. Ya ce suna kama da tururuwa a kan takarda, waɗanda ba sa iya ɗaga idanunsu daga tawada ko alƙalami da suke gani a gabansu, don haka sun kasa ganin wanda yake rubutu.16

According to Kitab al-Aghani by Faraj al-Isfahani, Abu Hanifa, the famous jurist and founder of one of the traditional schools of thought, debated a Dahri in the 8th century. Abu Hanifa was known to have intellectually hammered the Dahriyya in public debates (see Chapter 8). Many of the Islamic scholars responded to the claims of the Dahriyya, including Al-Ghazali, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Jaḥiẓ, Muhammad b. Shabib, Ibn Qutayba, and Abu ‘Isa al-Warraq.15 In Al-Ghazali’s book, Kimiyaʾ-yi sa‘adat, he describes the Dahriyya as reductionists who do not have a holistic understanding of the universe and its purpose. He asserts that they are like ants on a piece of paper that cannot lift their eyes from the ink or the pen they see before them, thus failing to see who is writing.16

Tarihin Musulunci na rashin yarda da wanzuwar Allah ya nuna a fili yanayin tattaunawa da muhawara ta ilimi, wanda ba zai yiwu ba sai da girmama juna da haƙuri. Alƙur'ani ya bayyana sarai cewa samun akidu iri-iri na cikin nufin Allah, kuma cewa bai kamata a taɓa tilastawa kowa ba, sai dai girmama juna da haƙuri.

Bayan shekarun 1960, ilimin falsafa na logical positivism ya mutu. Ɗaya daga cikin manyan dalilan mutuwarsa shi ne cewa ya ci kansa. Ka'idar ma'ana ta masu logical positivism ita ce cewa duk wata magana dole ne a tabbatar da ita ta hanyar gogewar zahiri; sai dai ita kanta wannan ka'ida ba za a iya tabbatar da ita ta hanyar gogewar zahiri ba. Saboda haka, ita kanta ka'idar ba ta da ma'ana. Bayan mutuwar logical positivism, duniyar ilimi ta ga tashin sabon tunanin imani da Allah. Mujallar Time a shekarar 1980 ta yi sharhi game da tashin tunanin imani da Allah na ilimi: "A wani sauyi mai natsuwa a tunani da muhawara wanda kusan babu wanda zai iya hasashensa shekara ashirin kacal da suka wuce, ana samun dawowar Allah. Abin mamaki shi ne, wannan ba ya faruwa a tsakanin masana tauhidi ko talakawa masu bi ba, sai dai a cikin kaifaffun da'irorin ilimi na masana falsafa, inda matsaya ta daɗe tana korar Mai Iko Duka daga tattaunawa mai amfani."27

Post 1960s saw the death of logical positivism. One of the key reasons for its demise was the fact that it was self-defeating. The logical positivists’ criterion for meaning was that any statement had to be verified by physical experience; however, the criterion itself could not be verified by physical experience. Consequently, the criterion itself was meaningless. After the demise of logical positivism, the academic world saw the intellectual resurrection of theism. Time magazine in 1980 commented on the rise of intellectual theism: “In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not amongst theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.”27

Wani dalili ta farfaɗo da akidar tauhidi a fagen ilimi a wajen tsakiyar karni na 20 ita ce gano wasu ci gaba masu ban sha'awa a fannin kimiyya. Daga cikinsu akwai "Babban Fashewa" (Big Bang), wanda ke tabbatar da cewa sararin duniya yana da farko. Wannan ya saɓa wa tunanin da aka saba yi, wanda ya ɗauka cewa sararin duniya tsayayye ne kuma madawwami, ba ya buƙatar mahalicci (duba Babi na 5). A shekarun 1970, masana ilimin sararin samaniya (cosmologists) sun gano wani abin mamaki da ake kira daidaitawa mai kyau (fine tuning), wanda ya nuna a fili cewa dokokin sararin duniya da tsarinsa kamar an tsara su ne an daidaita su domin rayuwa mai sarƙaƙiya da hankali, kamar ɗan adam, ta samu wurin zama (duba Babi na 8). A farkon karni na 20, fahimtarmu game da tushen ilimin halittu ba ta cika ba. Mun ɗauka cewa sel, wato ginshiƙan halittu, kawai ƙwayoyin protoplasm ne marasa bambanci. Amma a shekarar 1953, James Watson da Francis Crick sun nuna tsarin DNA mai kamar murɗaɗɗen matakala biyu (double helix), wanda shi ne na'urar adana bayanai ta sel. Bayan wannan gano, juyin juya halin ilimin ƙwayoyin halitta (molecular biology) ya ci gaba, yana bayyana ƙarin abubuwa masu ban sha'awa da sarƙaƙiya a matakin ƙananan halittu. Crick (wanda shi kansa ba ya yarda da Allah) ya yi mamakin yadda lambar kwayoyin halitta (genetic code) take a duniya baki ɗaya har ya kai ga gaskata cewa ba zai yiwu ya faru da daidaituwa kawai ba, kuma ya bayar da hujjar cewa akwai wani tsoma baki daga wata duniya ta waje. Waɗannan gano-gano da ci gaban kimiyya, tare da ma'anarsu ta falsafa, sun mayar da akidar tauhidi a hankali zuwa teburin tattaunawar ilimi da ta jami'a. A yau, tauhidi matsayi ne mai daraja da karɓuwa a ilimi.