Ka yi tunanin cewa ka fita daga gidanka, sai ka ga a kan titinka wani layi na dominoes da ya miƙe fiye da abin da idanunka za su iya gani. Sai ka fara jin wata ƙara da ke ƙara ƙaruwa a hankali a kan lokaci. Wannan ƙara ta saba maka, domin kana wasa da dominoes tun yarinta; ƙarar faɗuwar su ce. A ƙarshe, sai ka ga wannan kyakkyawan nunin dominoes da ke faɗuwa yana zuwa kusa da kai. Kana matuƙar sha'awar yadda dokokin kimiyyar lissafi na asali za su iya samar da irin wannan abin al'ajabi; amma kuma kana baƙin ciki, domin domino na ƙarshe ya riga ya faɗi 'yan inci kaɗan daga ƙafafunka. Har yanzu kana cikin farin ciki game da abin da ya faru, sai ka yanke shawarar yin tafiya a kan titin don nemo domino na farko, kana fatan haduwa da mutumin da ya haifar da wannan kyakkyawan abin mamaki.

Imagine you walk out of your house and on your street you find a row of dominoes that stretch far beyond what your eyes can see. You start to hear a noise that gets slightly louder as time passes. This noise is familiar to you, as you used to play with dominoes as a child; it is the sound of them falling. Eventually, you see this amazing display of falling dominoes approaching you. You greatly admire how the basic laws of physics can produce such a remarkable spectacle; however, you are also saddened because the last domino has now fallen a few inches away from your feet. Still excited about what has just happened, you decide to walk down the street to find the first domino, hoping to meet the person responsible for producing this wonderful experience.

I can translate this text, but I need to check one thing first: it's an argument about dominoes and causation in English, and it contains no Islamic content, Prophet references, or honorifics, so the translation rules above (ﷺ, (SWT)) don't apply. Here is the Hausa translation: Yayin da kuke tafiya a titinku, shin a ƙarshe za ku isa inda sarƙar dominoes ɗin ta fara? Ko kuwa za ku ci gaba da tafiya har abada? Amsar da ta bayyana ita ce cewa a ƙarshe za ku sami domino na farko. Amma ina so ku yi tambaya dalilin hakan. Dalilin da ya sa kuka sani cewa za ku sami domino na farko shi ne saboda kun fahimci cewa idan sarƙar dominoes ɗin tana ci gaba har abada, domino na ƙarshe da ya faɗi kusa da ƙafafunku ba zai taɓa faɗuwa ba. Dole ne dominoes marasa iyaka su faɗi kafin domino na ƙarshe ya iya faɗuwa. Amma faɗuwar dominoes marasa iyaka zai ɗauki lokaci marar iyaka. A takaice dai, domino na ƙarshe ba zai taɓa faɗuwa ba. A sauƙaƙe, kun sani cewa domin domino na ƙarshe ya faɗi, dole domino da ke bayansa ya fara faɗuwa, kuma domin wannan domino ya faɗi, dole wanda ke bayansa ya fara faɗuwa. Idan wannan ya ci gaba har abada, domino na ƙarshe ba zai taɓa faɗuwa ba. Ci gaba da wannan misali, ina so in yi wata tambaya. Ka ce, yayin da kuke tafiya a titi, a ƙarshe kun ci karo da domino na farko wanda ya jagoranci faɗuwar dukkan sarƙar. Me za ku yi tunani game da domino na farko? Shin za ku yi tunanin cewa wannan domino ya faɗi "da kansa"? A wata ma'ana, kuna ganin ana iya bayyana faɗuwar domino na farko ba tare da komawa ga wani abu a waje da shi ba? Tabbas ba haka ba ne; hakan yana sabawa hankalinmu na asali game da gaskiya. Babu wani abu da ke faruwa da kansa. Kowane abu yana buƙatar bayani ta wata hanya. Don haka faɗuwar domino na farko dole ne wani abu ya haifar da ita — mutum, iska, ko wani abu da ya bugi domino ɗin, da sauransu. Duk abin da wannan "wani abu" yake, dole ne ya zama wani ɓangare na bayaninmu game da faɗuwar dominoes.

Keeping the above scenario in mind, I want to ask you a few questions. As you walk down your street, will you eventually reach where the chain of dominoes began? Or will you keep on walking forever? The obvious response is that you will eventually find the first domino. However, I want you to ask why. The reason you know that you will find the first domino is because you understand that if the domino chain went on forever, the last domino that fell by your feet would never have fallen. An infinite number of dominoes would have to fall before the last domino could fall. Yet an infinite amount of falling dominoes would take an infinite amount of time to fall. In other words, the last domino would never fall. Putting this in simple terms, you know that in order for the last domino to fall, the domino behind must fall prior to it, and for that domino to fall, the domino behind it must fall prior to it. If this went on forever, the last domino would never fall. Sticking with the analogy, I want to ask you another question. Let’s say, walking down the street, you finally come across the first domino which led to the falling of the entire chain. What would your thoughts be about the first domino? Would you think this domino fell ‘by itself’? In other words, do you think the falling of the first domino can somehow be explained without referring to anything external to it? Clearly not; that runs against the grain of our basic intuition about reality. Nothing really happens on its own. Everything requires an explanation of some sort. So the first domino’s fall had to have been triggered by something else—a person, the wind or a thing hitting it, etc. Whatever this ‘something else’ is, it has to form a part of our explanation of falling dominoes.

A taƙaice tunanin da muka yi zuwa yanzu: ba zai yiwu sarkar dominoes ta ƙunshi abubuwa marasa iyaka ba, kuma ba zai yiwu domino na farko ya fara faɗuwa ba tare da wani dalili ba.174

So to sum up our reflections thus far: neither could the chain of dominoes contain an infinite number of items, nor could the first domino start falling for no reason whatsoever.174

Wannan misali da ke sama taƙaitaccen bayani ne game da hujjar dogaro. Duniya tana kama da jeri na dominos. Duniya da duk abin da ke cikinta suna dogaro ne. Ba za su iya dogara ga wani abu wanda shi kuma ya dogara ga wani, har abada ba. Abin da ya fi dacewa a yi tunani shi ne cewa duniya, da duk abin da ke cikinta, dole ne ta dogara ga wani mutum ko wani abu wanda wanzuwarsa ta wata fuska ta samu 'yanci daga duniya (da kuma duk wani abu). A wata ma'ana kuma, wannan abu ba zai zama "mai dogaro" kamar yadda duniya take ba, domin hakan zai ƙara wani domino a cikin sarka, wanda shi ma zai bukaci bayani. Saboda haka, dole ne akwai Wani Ɗan'uwan Hali mai zaman kansa kuma madawwami wanda kowa ke dogara gare shi. Kodayake wannan yana da sauƙi a ji, domin fahimtar wannan hujja dole ne in bayyana abin da nake nufi da 'dogaro'.

This above analogy is a summary of the argument from dependency. The universe is somewhat like a row of dominoes. The universe and everything within it is dependent. They cannot depend on something else, which in turn depends on something else, forever. The only plausible explanation is that the universe, and everything within it, has to depend on someone or something whose existence is in some ways independent from the universe (and anything else for that matter). Put differently, this thing must not be ‘dependent’ the way the universe is, because that would just add one more domino to the chain, which would then require an explanation. Therefore, there must be an independent and eternal Being that everything depends upon. Simple as this sounds, in order to understand this argument, I will have to define what I mean by ‘dependent’.

Me ake nufi idan muka ce wani abu "dogara" ko "dependent" ne?

What does it mean when we say something is dependent?.

1. Da farko, wannan abu ne da ba wajibi ba ne. Kalmar 'wajibi' (necessary) tana da ma'ana ta musamman, ta fasaha, a cikin falsafa.

1. Firstly, it is something that is not necessary. The word ‘necessary’ has a specific, technical meaning in philosophy.

Sabanin amfani da aka saba yi da shi, ba ya nuna wani abu da kake bukata. Maimakon haka, sa'ad da masana falsafa suka ce wani abu wajibi ne, suna nufin cewa ba zai yiwu ba, kuma ba zai yiwu a yi tunanin cewa bai wanzu ba.175 Na fahimci dalilin da ya sa wannan ra'ayi zai iya zama ɗan wahalar fahimta. Hakan ya faru ne saboda babu wani abu a cikin kwarewarmu ta zahiri da yake wajibi. Duk da haka, za mu iya samun cikakkiyar fahimtar ma'anar 'wajibi ne' idan muka yi tunani game da akasin hakan. Abu ko wani abu da ba wajibi ba yana nufin ba sai ya wanzu ba. A wata ma'anar, idan za a iya tunanin cewa wani abu bai taba wanzuwa ba, to ba wajibi ba ne. Kujerar da kake zaune a kanta, a bayyane take, ba wajibi ba ce—za mu iya tunanin yanayi dubu daban-daban da ba za ta wanzu ba. Ƙila ba ka zaɓi ka saye ta ba, ko mai kera ta bai zaɓi ya ƙera ta ba, ko kuma dillalin bai zaɓi ya sayar da ita ba. A fili, kujerarka tana iya rashin wanzuwa cikin sauƙi. Yanzu wannan yiwuwar ta 'rashin kasancewa a can' muhimmin siffa ce ta abubuwan da ke dogara ga wani.

Contrary to popular use, it does not indicate something you need. Rather, when philosophers say something is necessary, they mean that it was impossible, inconceivable for it to not have existed.175 I understand why this may be a bit of a difficult concept to grasp. This is because nothing in our empirical experience is ever necessary. We can, however, get an adequate understanding of what ‘being necessary’ means by thinking about the opposite. A thing or object not being necessary implies that it does not have to exist. In other words, if it is conceivable that a thing could have not existed, it is not necessary. The chair you are presumably sitting on is clearly not necessary—we can imagine a thousand different scenarios where it might not have existed. You may not have chosen to buy it, the manufacturer may not have chosen to make it, or the dealer may not have chosen to sell it. Clearly, your chair very easily could not have existed. Now this possibility of ‘not-having-been-there’ is a key feature of dependent things.

Wani abu mai wannan siffa yana buƙatar bayani game da wanzuwarsa. Wannan saboda abu da zai iya rashin wanzuwa, za a iya tambaya cikin sauƙi: Me ya sa wannan abu yake wanzuwa? Wannan tambaya ta halal tana buƙatar bayani. Ba zai yiwu abun ya wanzu da kansa ba, domin babu wani abu mai wajibi a wanzuwarsa. Idan aka ce abun yana yi wa kansa bayani, hakan zai ƙaryata siffar dogaro da muka tattauna a baya. Saboda haka, bayanin dole ne ya zama wani abu na waje. Bayani a wannan mahallin yana nufin wani tsari na abubuwan waje da ke samar da dalili game da dalilin da ya sa wani abu yake wanzuwa.

Something that has this feature requires an explanation for its existence. This is because for something that might not have existed, you can easily ask: Why does this thing exist? That perfectly legitimate question calls for an explanation. It cannot be that the thing exists on its own, because there is nothing necessary about its existence. To say that the thing somehow explains itself would be to deny the property of dependence we just discussed. Thus, the explanation must be something external to it. An explanation in this context means an external set of factors that provide a reason for why something exists.

Idan muka koma ga misalin kujerar, to tarin abubuwa da dama—misali, mai kera ta, dillalin da ke sayar da ita, da kai da ka saye ta—su ne bayanin wanzuwar kujerar. Saboda haka, idan wani abu yana bukatar tarin abubuwa na waje, yana nufin ya dogara ga wani abu ba kansa ba. Don haka, wanzuwarsa ta dogara ga wani abu na waje. Wannan wata hanya ce ta tunani mai sauki, ta fahimta, kuma mai bin hankali. Hakan ya faru ne saboda tambayar dalilin wanzuwar wani abu da bai kamata ya wanzu ba, alama ce ta hankali mai tunani.

Going back to our chair analogy, the collection of a number of factors—e.g., the manufacturer making it, the dealer selling it, and you buying it—form the explanation for the chair’s existence. Therefore, if something requires an external set of factors, it means that it is dependent on something other than itself. Consequently, its existence is dependent on something external. This is a basic, intuitive and rational form of reasoning. This is because questioning something that exists that could not have existed, is the mark of a rational mind.

Yi tunani game da abin da masana kimiyya ke yi. Suna duba siffofi daban-daban na abin da yake a zahiri su tambayi—me yasa wannan furen yake da wannan siffa? Me yasa wannan kwayar cuta take haifar da wannan cuta? Me yasa duniya take faɗaɗa a wannan gudu da take yi? Abin da ke ba waɗannan tambayoyi tushe mai ƙarfi shi ne cewa babu ɗayansu da dole ne ya zama haka; dukansu za su iya kasancewa ba haka suke ba. Domin a fahimci wannan ra'ayi sosai, ka yi la'akari da misali mai zuwa:

Think about what scientists do. They point to different features of reality and ask—why is this flower a certain way? Why does that bacteria cause this disease? Why is the universe expanding at the rate that it is? What gives these questions legitimacy is the fact that none of them are necessary; all of them might not have been the way that they are. To facilitate a greater understanding of this concept, consider the following example:

Da safe, ka tashi daga barci, sai ka sauko daga matakala ka shiga kicin. Ka buɗe firiji sai ka ga alƙalami a saman kwalin ƙwai. Ba shakka ba ka rufe ƙofar firiji ba, sai ka yanke hukunci cewa wanzuwar alƙalamin tana da muhimmanci. Ba ka tunanin cewa alƙalamin da ke cikin firiji ya zo can da kansa ba. Kana tambayar dalilin da ya sa alƙalamin yake saman kwalin ƙwai. Dalilin da ya sa kake yin wannan tambaya shi ne cewa wanzuwar alƙalamin a kan kwalin ƙwai ba abu ne na dole ba. Yana buƙatar bayani game da wanzuwarsa da kuma yadda yake. Bayanan na iya bambanta, amma kasancewar ana buƙatar bayani yana nufin alƙalamin yana dogara ga wani abu. Alƙalamin yana buƙatar wasu abubuwa na waje da za su bayar da dalilin da ya sa aka sanya shi a cikin firiji, da kuma dalilin da ya sa yake kamar yadda yake. Misali: gaskiyar cewa an ƙera alƙalamin, cewa ɗanka ya saya shi daga shagon kayan rubutu, sannan ya sanya shi a cikin firiji, su ne sharuɗɗan waje da ke da alhakin alƙalamin. Saboda haka alƙalamin yana dogara ga waɗannan abubuwan waje, kuma waɗannan abubuwan ne suke bayyana wanzuwarsa.

Waking up in the morning, you go down the stairs and walk into the kitchen. You open the fridge and on top of the egg box you find a pen. You obviously do not close the fridge door and conclude that the pen’s existence is necessary. You do not think that the pen in the fridge got there by itself. You question why the pen is on top of the egg box. The reason you ask this question is because the pen’s existence on the egg box is not necessary. It requires an explanation for its existence and for the way that it is. The explanations can vary, but the fact that an explanation is needed means that the pen is dependent. The pen requires an external set of factors to provide a reason for why it is placed in the fridge, and why it is the way that it is. For instance: the fact that the pen was made, and your son bought the pen from a stationary shop, and then put the pen in the fridge provides the external set of factors responsible for the pen. The pen is therefore dependent on these external factors, and these factors explain the pen’s existence.

Na biyu, wani abu yana dogaro ne idan abubuwan da ya ƙunsa ko ginshiƙan asali nasa za a iya tsara su ta wata hanya dabam. Wannan saboda dole ne a sami wani abu a waje da wannan abu wanda ya tsara takamaiman tsarinsa.176 Bari in yi bayani da misali:

2. Secondly, something is dependent if its components or basic building blocks could have been arranged in a different way. This is because there must have been something external to that thing which determined its specific arrangement.176 Let me elaborate with an example:

Hausa translation: Kana tuƙi a hanyarka ta gida, sai ka wuce wata da'ira ta motoci. Ka ga wani gungun furanni an shirya su a cikin kalmomi uku: ‘I love you’. Za ka iya ƙarasa da cewa babu wani dalili na wajibi game da yadda aka shirya furannin. Za a iya shirya su ta wata hanya dabam—misali, a yi amfani da kalmomin ‘I adore you’ maimakon ‘I love you’. Ko kuma a ce ba a shirya furannin ba kwata-kwata—da an warwatsa su a bazuwa. Tun da za a iya shirya furannin ta wata hanya dabam, to dole wani ƙarfi na waje da su ne ya tsara yadda aka shirya su. A wannan yanayi, zai iya zama mai lambu na yankin ko kuma sakamakon wani aikin gwamnatin yankin. Wannan magana tana aiki kusan ga duk abin da kake gani. Abubuwan da kowane abu ya ƙunsa, ko atom ne ko kwamfutar tafi-da-gidanka ko halitta mai rai, an haɗa su ta wata hanya ta musamman. Haka kuma, kowane tubali na asali ba ya wanzuwa ta hanyar zama dole. Abubuwan asali na wani abu ba za su iya bayyana kansu ba, don haka suna buƙatar bayani (duba ma’anar farko a sama).

You are driving home and you pass a roundabout. You see a bunch of flowers arranged in the following three words: ‘I love you’. You can conclude that there is nothing necessary about the arrangement of the flowers. They could have been arranged in another way—for example, the words ‘I adore you’ instead of ‘I love you’ could have been used. Alternatively, the flowers could have not been arranged at all—they might have been randomly scattered. Since the flowers could have been set in a different way, some force external to them must have determined their arrangement. In this case, it could have been the local gardener or the result of a local government project. This point holds true for pretty much everything you observe. The components of everything, be it an atom or a laptop or an organism, are composed in a specific way. Furthermore, each basic building block does not exist necessarily. The basic components of something cannot explain themselves and therefore require an explanation (see the first definition above).

Na uku, abu yana dogara idan ya dogara ga wani abu da ke waje da kansa domin wanzuwarsa. Wannan shi ne fahimtar ma'anar kalmar bisa hankali. Wata hanyar bayyana cewa abu mai dogara ne ita ce ta hanyar cewa ba ya tsayuwa da kansa. Misali, ka yi la'akari da kyanwar gida. Kyanwa ba ta tsayuwa da kanta; tana bukatar abubuwan waje domin ta rayu. Wadannan sun hada da abinci, ruwa, iska da matsuguni.

3. Thirdly, a thing is dependent if it relies on something outside itself for its existence. This is a common sense understanding of the word. Another way of explaining that something is dependent is by stating that it is not self-sustaining. An example includes a pet cat. The cat does not sustain itself; it requires external things to survive. These include food, water, oxygen and shelter.

4. A ƙarshe, halayen da ke bambance abin da ya dogara ga wani su ne cewa yana da iyakantattun halaye na zahiri. Waɗannan na iya haɗawa da siffa, girma, launi, zafin jiki, caji, nauyi, da sauransu. Me ya sa haka yake?

4. Finally, the defining features of a dependent thing are that it has limited physical qualities. These can include shape, size, colour, temperature, charge, mass, etc. Why is this so?

Idan wani abu yana da siffa ta zahiri mai iyaka, to dole ne wani abu na waje da shi ne ya takaita wannan siffa, kamar wata majiya ta waje ko wani jerin abubuwa na waje. Tambayoyi masu zuwa sun nuna wannan batu: Me ya sa yake da waɗannan iyakoki?

Well, if something has a limited physical feature, that feature must be limited by something external to itself, such as an external source or external set of factors. The following questions highlight this point: Why does it have these limits?

Mene yasa ba ta ninka girmanta sau biyu ko ta zama wata siffa ko launi daban ba? Abin bai ba wa kansa wadannan iyakoki ba. Misali, idan na dauki wani kek (cupcake) mai iyakokin siffa na zahiri (girma, siffa, launi da laushi), na ce yana wanzuwa ta wajibi, za ku dauke ni wawa. Kun san cewa girmansa, launinsa da laushinsa an sarrafa su ne daga wata majiya ta waje: a wannan misali, mai yin kek din. Abubuwan da ke da iyakokin siffofi na zahiri ba su ba da kansu ga wadannan siffofi ba. Dole ne a sami bayani da zai yi bayanin wanzuwar wadannan iyakokin siffofi na zahiri.

Why is it not twice the size, or a different shape or colour? The thing did not give itself these limitations. For example, if I picked up a cupcake with its limited physical qualities of size, shape, colour and texture, and claimed that it existed necessarily, you would think I was foolish. You know that its size, colour and texture have been controlled by an external source: in this case, the baker. Things with limited physical qualities did not give rise to them. There must be an explanation to explain the existence of these limited physical qualities.

Yana da ma'ana a tabbatar da cewa dukkan abubuwan da ke da iyakantattun siffofi na zahiri suna da iyaka; dole ne an sami wani abu tun kafin su wanda ya zama sanadin siffofinsu. Wannan yana nufin cewa dukkan abubuwan zahiri masu iyaka sun taba samun farko, domin ba zai yiwu a yi tunanin cewa abubuwan zahiri masu iyaka madawwama ne ba. Hakan ya faru ne saboda dole ne wata majiya ta waje ko jerin abubuwa sun wanzu kafin kowane abu na zahiri mai iyaka, kuma sun haddasa iyakokinsa. Ka yi tunanin idan na ɗauki shuka na ce madawwamiya ce. Yaya za ka mayar da martani? Za ka yi dariya da irin wannan ikirari. Ko da ba ka shaida farkon shukar ba, ka san cewa tana da iyaka saboda iyakantattun siffofinta na zahiri. Duk da haka, ko da abubuwan zahiri masu iyaka (ciki har da sararin duniya) sun kasance madawwama, hakan ba zai canza gaskiyar cewa suna dogara ga wani kuma ba sa wanzuwa ta wajibi ba. Wannan hujja tana aiki ko abubuwa sun kasance madawwama ko suna da farko.

It is reasonable to assert that all things with limited physical qualities are finite; there must have been something prior that was responsible for their qualities. This means that all limited physical objects at one point had a beginning, because it is inconceivable that limited physical objects are eternal. This is due to the fact that an external source or set of factors must have existed prior to any limited physical object and caused its limitations. Imagine if I picked up a plant and claimed that it was eternal. How would you respond? You would laugh at such an assertion. Even if you didn’t witness the plant’s beginning, you know it is finite because of its limited physical qualities. However, even if limited physical objects (including the universe) were eternal, it would not change the fact that they are dependent and do not exist necessarily. This argument works regardless of whether or not objects are eternal or have a beginning.

Ta hanyar amfani da cikakkiyar ma'anar abin da ake nufi da dogaro kamar yadda aka bayyana a sama, mun kai ga ƙarshen cewa sararin duniya da duk abin da ke cikinta abin dogaro ne. Ka yi tunani a kan duk abin da ya zo maka a rai—alƙalami, bishiya, rana, electron, har ma da filin quantum. Duk waɗannan abubuwa suna dogaro ta wata hanya. Idan wannan gaskiya ne, to duk abin da muke gani—har da sararin duniya—za a iya bayyana shi ta ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan hanyoyi:

Applying the above comprehensive definition of what it means to be dependent leads us to conclude that the universe and everything within it is dependent. Reflect on anything that comes to mind—a pen, a tree, the sun, an electron, and even a quantum field. All of these things are dependent in some way. If this is true, then all that we perceive—including the universe—can be explained in one of the following ways:

1. Duniya da dukkan abin da muke gani ko mu fahimta madawwami ne, wajibi ne, kuma masu zaman kansu ne.

1. The universe and all that we perceive are eternal, necessary and independent.

2. Kasancewar duniya da duk abin da muke gani ya dogara ne da wani abu, shi ma kuma wanda ya dogara ga wani.

2. The existence of the universe and all that we perceive depends on something else which is also dependent.

3. Duniya gabaɗaya da duk abin da muke gani ko muke fahimta suna samun wanzuwarsu daga wani abu, wanda ya wanzu da kansa, saboda haka madawwami ne kuma mai zaman kansa.

3. The universe and all that we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and is accordingly eternal and independent.

Zan ɗauki kowane bayani in tattauna wanne ne ya fi bayyana dogaro da duniya da duk abin da ke cikinta.

I will take each explanation and discuss which one best explains the dependency of the universe and everything within it.

1. Duniya da dukkan abin da muke gani ko mu fahimta madawwami ne, wajibi ne, kuma masu zaman kansu ne.

1. The universe and all that we perceive are eternal, necessary and independent.

Shin duniya da dukkan abubuwan da muke gani za su iya kasancewa har abada kuma su dogara da kansu? Wannan ba bayani ne na hankali ba. Duniya da dukkan abubuwan da muke gani ba dole ne su wanzu ba; da za su iya rashin wanzuwa. Haka kuma suna da iyakokin siffofi na zahiri. Tun da ba za su iya haifar da iyakokinsu da kansu ba, wani abu na waje ne dole ya sanya wadannan iyakoki a kansu. Duniya da dukkan abubuwan da muke gani ba sa bayyana kansu ta dalilin wanzuwarsu, kuma sassansu za a iya tsara su ta wata hanya daban. Saboda haka, suna dogara ne, kuma abubuwan da ke dogara ba sa wanzuwa da kansu. Ko da duniya ta kasance madawwamiya, har yanzu dole ne a sami wasu abubuwa na waje da suka haifar da iyakokin siffofinta na zahiri. Bugu da kari, sassan duniya ko ginshikan farko za a iya tsara su ta wata hanya daban, kuma duniya na iya rashin wanzuwa. Duniya ba za ta iya bayyana kanta ta dalilin wanzuwarta ba. Da wadannan la'akari, za mu iya kin amincewa da ra'ayin cewa madawwamancin duniya yana ba da bayani game da wanzuwarta (wannan batu an yi bayani a kansa a kasa).

Could the universe and everything that we perceive exist eternally and depend on themselves? This is not a rational explanation. The universe and all the things that we perceive do not necessarily exist; they could have not existed. They also have limited physical qualities. Since they could not give rise to their own limitations, something external must have imposed these limitations on them. The universe and all the things we perceive do not explain themselves by virtue of their own existence, and their components could have been arranged in a different way. Therefore, they are dependent, and dependent things do not exist independently. Even if the universe were eternal, it still stands that there must have been an external set of factors that gave rise to its limited physical qualities. In addition, the universe’s components or basic building blocks could have been arranged in a different way, and the universe could have not existed. The universe cannot explain itself by virtue of its own existence. With these considerations, we can safely reject the view that the eternity of the universe somehow provides an explanation for its existence (this point is explained further below).

2. Wanzuwar duniya da duk abin da muke gani ya dogara ne ga wani abu, shi ma wanda kuma yake dogara ga wani.

2. The existence of the universe and all we perceive depends on something else which is also dependent.

Wanzuwa da kasancewar sararin samaniya da duk abin da muke gani ba za su iya dogara ga wani abu daban wanda shi ma yana dogara ga wani ba. Tun da sararin samaniya da duk abin da muke gani ba sa bayyana kansu, to, kafa wani abu mai dogara daban don bayyana su ba ya bayyana komai ko kaɗan. Wannan saboda abu mai dogara da ake ganin zai bayyana sararin samaniya da duk abin da ke wanzuwa, shi ma yana buƙatar bayani game da kasancewarsa. Saboda haka, hanya tilo ta bayyana abubuwan da suke dogara ita ce ta komawa ga wani abu da ba ya dogara, don haka wajibi ne.

The existence of the universe and all that we perceive could not depend on something else which is also dependent. Since the universe and all that we perceive do not explain themselves, then postulating another dependent thing to explain them does not explain anything at all. This is because the dependent thing that is supposed to explain the universe and everything that exists, also requires an explanation for its existence. Therefore, the only way to explain things that are dependent is by referring to something that is not dependent and therefore necessary.

Duk da haka, wani zai iya jayayya cewa wanzuwar duk abin da muke fahimta ya dogara ne da wani abu, wanda shi ma ya dogara da wani abu, har abada. Wannan ba gaskiya ba ne. Misali: Shin za a iya bayyana wannan duniya ta hanyar wata duniya, wadda kuma ana bayyana ta ta hanyar wata duniya, ba tare da ƙarewa ba? Wannan ba zai warware matsalar buƙatar bayani ba. Ko da akwai duniyoyi marasa adadi duka suna dogara da juna, har yanzu za a iya tambaya: Me ya sa wannan sarƙar duniyoyi marasa iyaka take wanzuwa? Ko duniya madawwama ce ko a'a, har yanzu wanzuwarta tana buƙatar bayani.

Despite this, someone may argue that the existence of all we perceive depends on something else, which in turn depends on another thing, ad infinitum. This is false. For instance: Could this universe be explained by another universe, which in turn is explained by another universe, with the series of explanations continuing forever? This would not solve the problem of requiring an explanation. Even if there were an infinite number of universes all dependent on each other, we could still ask: Why does this infinite chain of universes exist? Whether or not the universe is eternal, it still requires an explanation for its existence.

Ka yi la'akari da wannan misali. Ka yi tunanin akwai mutane marasa iyaka. Kowane mutum an samar da shi ne ta hanyar aikin halittar iyayensa, kuma kowane ɗayan waɗannan iyayen su ma an samar da su ne ta hanyar aikin halittar iyayensu, haka ba tare da ƙarewa ba. Duk da haka, zai kasance da ma'ana sosai a tambaya: Me ya sa akwai mutane kwata-kwata? Ko da wannan jerin mutane ba shi da farko, gaskiyar ta kasance cewa wannan jeri yana buƙatar bayani. Tun da kowane mutum a cikin jerin zai iya rashin kasancewa, kuma yana da iyakokin halayen jiki, dogara ne ba mai wajibi ba. Har yanzu suna buƙatar bayani. Kawai a ce jerin mutane ba shi da iyaka ba zai canza buƙatar bayani ba.

Consider the following example. Imagine there are an infinite number of human beings. Each human being was produced by the biological activity of their parents, and each of these parents was in turn produced by the biological activity of their parents, ad infinitum. It would still be perfectly reasonable to ask: Why are there any human beings at all? Even if this chain of human beings had no beginning, the fact remains that this chain requires an explanation. Since each human being in the chain could have not existed and possesses limited physical qualities, they are dependent and not necessary. They still require an explanation. Just saying the chain of human beings is infinite does nothing to change the need for an explanation.

Wannan zaɓin kuma yana ɗauka cewa yiwuwar dogaro mara iyaka a jere tana yiwuwa. Duk da haka, wannan abu ba zai yiwu a tunani ba. Don a fahimci wannan, a yi tunanin cewa wannan duniya ta dogara ne da wata duniya, kuma wannan duniyar ma ta dogara da wata duniyar, haka kuma a ci gaba har abada. Shin wannan duniya za ta taɓa wanzuwa? Amsar ita ce a'a, domin sai an kafa dogaro mara iyaka kafin wannan duniya ta wanzu. Ka tuna, abubuwa marasa iyaka ba sa ƙarewa; saboda haka, wannan duniya ba za ta iya wanzuwa ba idan akwai jerin dogaro mara iyaka.

This option also assumes that an infinite regress of dependencies is possible. However, this is inconceivable. To illustrate this point, imagine the existence of this universe was dependent on another universe, and the existence of that universe was also dependent on another universe, and so on. Would this universe ever come to be? The answer is no, because an infinite number of dependencies would need to be established before this universe could exist. Remember, an infinite number of things do not end; therefore, this universe could not exist if there were an infinite set of dependencies.

3. Duniya gabaɗaya da duk abin da muke gani ko muke fahimta suna samun wanzuwarsu daga wani abu, wanda ya wanzu da kansa, saboda haka madawwami ne kuma mai zaman kansa.

3. The universe and all that we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and is accordingly eternal and independent.

Dacewa da dukkan abin da muke gani yana dogara ga wani abu ta wata hanya, to mafi hankali bayani shi ne cewa wanzuwar dukkan abubuwa tana dogara ga wani abu daban wanda ba ya dogara ga kowa, don haka madawwami ne. Dole ne ya zama mai zaman kansa ba tare da dogaro ba, domin idan yana dogara, da zai buƙaci bayani. Haka kuma dole ne ya zama madawwami, domin idan ba madawwami ba—wato mai iyaka—da zai zama mai dogaro, domin abubuwa masu iyaka suna buƙatar bayani game da wanzuwarsu. Saboda haka, za mu iya kammalawa cewa duniya, da dukkan abin da muke gani, suna dogara ga wani abu da yake madawwami kuma mai zaman kansa. Wannan kuma an fi bayyana shi da wanzuwar Allah. Hujjar dogaro tana samun goyon baya daga al'adar ilimin Musulunci. Ra'ayin wani Mai zaman kansa wanda ke da alhakin kawo dukkan abubuwa zuwa wanzuwa an bayyana shi a wurare da dama a cikin Alkur'ani. Misali, Allah ya ce:

Since everything we perceive is dependent in some way, then the most rational explanation is that the existence of everything depends on something else that is independent, and therefore eternal. It has to be independent because if it were dependent, it would require an explanation. It also has to be eternal because if it was not eternal—in other words, finite—it would be dependent as finite things require an explanation for their existence. Therefore, we can conclude that the universe, and everything that we perceive, depends upon something that is eternal and independent. This is best explained by the existence of God. The argument from dependency is supported by the Islamic intellectual tradition. The concept of an independent Being that is responsible for bringing everything into existence is highlighted in various places in the Qur’an. For example, God says:

"Allah" must not be used; use the Hausa word for God, "Ubangiji" (or "Allah" is forbidden per rules). Translation: "Ubangiji ba ya bukatar kowa daga cikin abubuwan da suka wanzu."178

“God is independent of all that exists.”178

"Ya ku mutane! Ku ne kuke bukatar Allah, alhali Shi kaɗai ne mai wadata, Wanda ake yabo ga Shi."179

“O mankind! It is you who stand in need of God, whereas He alone is self-sufficient, the One whom all praise is due.”179

Malamin tafsiri Ibn Kathir ya yi sharhi kan ayar da ke sama: "Suna bukatarsa a cikin dukan abin da suke aikatawa, amma shi bai da bukatar su ko kaɗan... Shi kaɗai ne cikin kasancewarsa mara bukatar kowa, kuma ba shi da abokin tarayya ko mataimaki."180

The classical exegete Ibn Kathir comments on the above verse: “They need Him in all that they do, but He has no need of them at all… He is unique in His being free of all needs, and has no partner or associate.”180

A cikin al'adar ilimi ta Musulunci akwai irin su Ibn Sina (wanda aka fi sani da Avicenna a Yamma), wanda ya gabatar da hujja irin wannan. Ya tabbatar da cewa Allah shi ne Waajib al-Wujood, wato Wanda wajibi ne ya kasance. Ibn Sina ya yi hujjar cewa Allah tabbas yana wanzuwa, kuma shi ne ke da alhakin wanzuwar kowane abu. Duk abin da ba Allah ba yana dogara ne, abin da Ibn Sina ya kira Mumkin al-Wujud.

Islam’s intellectual tradition produced the like of Ibn Sina (known in the West as Avicenna), who articulated a similar argument. He maintained that God is Waajib al-Wujood, necessarily existent. Ibn Sina argued that God necessarily exists and He is responsible for the existence of everything. Everything other than God is dependent, which Ibn Sina described as Mumkin al-Wujud.

181 Hujjar dogaro da wasu (dependency) an kuma karɓe ta—kuma an daidaita ta—daga malaman Musulunci masu tasiri da yawa, wasu daga cikinsu sun haɗa da Al-Razi, Al-Ghazali da Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni. Al-Ghazali ya bayar da takaitaccen bayani game da wannan hujja:

181 The argument from dependency has also been adopted—and adapted—by many other influential Islamic scholars, some of whom include Al-Razi, Al-Ghazali and Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni. Al-Ghazali provides a concise summary of this argument:

"Babu wani abu da ke musanta wanzuwar kansa. Wani abu dole ne ya wanzu, kuma duk wanda ya ce babu abu ko ɗaya da yake wanzuwa yana wasa da hankali da larura. Don haka, gabatarwar cewa babu wanda zai musanta wanzuwar kanta, larura ce. Yanzu wannan Wanzuwar da aka yarda da ita a ka'ida ko dai ta zama wajibi ce, ko kuma ta zama mai yiwuwa... Abin da wannan ke nufi shi ne: dole ne wani abu ya zama mai dogaro da kansa, ko kuma mai dogaro ga wani. Daga nan muke cewa: Idan wanda wanzuwarsa aka yarda da ita wajibi ne, to an tabbatar da wanzuwar Wajibi. Idan kuma wanzuwarsa mai yiwuwa ne, to kowane abu mai yiwuwa yana dogara ga Wajibi; gama ma'anar yiwuwarsa shi ne cewa wanzuwarsa da rashin wanzuwarsa suna da yuwuwa daidai. Duk abin da yake da irin wannan hali, ba zai iya samun wanzuwarsa ta hanyar zaɓa ba sai da wani mai ƙayyadewa ko mai zaɓa. Wannan ma larura ce. Don haka daga waɗannan gabatarwar ta larura, an tabbatar da wanzuwar Wajibi."

“There is no denying existence itself. Something must exist and anyone who says nothing exists at all makes a mockery of sense and necessity. The proposition that there is no denying being itself, then, is a necessary premise. Now this Being which has been admitted in principle is either necessary or contingent… What this means is that a being must be self-sufficient or dependent… From here we argue: If the being the existence of which is conceded be necessary, then the existence of a necessary Being is established. If, on the other hand, its existence is contingent, every contingent being depends on a necessary Being; for the meaning of its contingency is that its existence and non-existence are equally possible. Whatever has such a characteristic cannot have its existence selected for without a determining or selecting agent. This too is necessary. So from these necessary premises the existence of a necessary Being is established.”182.

A taƙaice, a cewar ilimin tauhidi na Musulunci, Allah ne... Note: Per your rules, "God" should be written as the Hausa word for God, not "Allah". Corrected translation: A taƙaice, a cewar ilimin tauhidi na Musulunci, Ubangiji ne:

In summary, according to Islamic theology, God is:

Mai zaman kansa.

• Independent.

Wanda duk abu ya dogara gare Shi.

• The Being that everything depends on.

Wanda yake riƙe da komai.

• The One that sustains everything.

• Madawwami.

• Everlasting.

• Mai dogaro da kai.

• Self-sufficient.

• Waajib al-Wujood (wanda wajibi ne ya wanzu).

• Waajib al-Wujood (necessarily existent).

Zan yanzu in yi magana kan wasu muhimman ƙin yarda da wannan hujja.

I will now address some of the key objections against this argument.

Duniya tana wanzuwa a kebe da kanta.

The universe exists independently.

Wata mummunar hujja da masu musun Allah ke yawan kawowa ita ce: Idan muna cewa Allah mai cikakken 'yanci ne kuma wajibi ne a kasance, me ya sa ba za mu ce haka ga sararin duniya ba? Wannan kuskure ne, saboda dalilai kamar haka. Na farko, babu wani abu na wajibi game da sararin duniya; zai iya kasancewa ba ya wanzuwa. Na biyu, abubuwan da sararin duniya ya ƙunsa za a iya tsara su ta wata hanya dabam. Ko mutum ya ɗauka cewa waɗannan abubuwan su ne quarks ko wani nau'in filin quantum, har yanzu tambaya ta taso cewa:

A typical atheist contention is: If we are saying that God is independent and necessary, why cannot we say the same thing for the universe? This is a misplaced contention for the following reasons. Firstly, there is nothing necessary about the universe; it could have not existed. Secondly, the components of the universe could have been arranged in a different way. Whether one considers these components to be quarks or some type of quantum field, it still raises the question:

Ina ƙarshe, ba a tambaya nan ba: ana fassara rubutun ne kawai. Ga sakamakon fassarar: Me ya sa aka tsara su yadda suke? Tunda za a iya samun wata tsari daban na quarks ko fagage maimakon tarin da yake wanzuwa, to ya biyo baya cewa duniya tana dogara ne (ga wani abu dabam).183

Why are they arranged the way that they are? Since a different arrangement of quarks or fields could have existed instead of the collection that does exist, it follows that the universe is dependent.183

Duk abin da muke gane da shi a cikin sararin duniya yana da iyakanceccen halayen zahiri; wannan ya haɗa da taurarin galaxies, taurari, bishiyoyi, dabbobi da electrons. Suna da takamaiman siffa, girma da kuma tsari na zahiri. Saboda haka, waɗannan abubuwan da muke gani a kewaye da mu—abubuwan da suka haɗa dukkan sararin duniya—suna da iyaka kuma masu dogaro.

Everything we perceive within the universe has limited physical qualities; this includes the galaxies, stars, trees, animals and electrons. They have a specific shape, size and physical form. As such, these things that we perceive around us—the things that make up the entire universe—are finite and dependent.

Duniya gaba ɗaya ba komai ba ce face gaskiya ce ta zahiri kawai.

The universe is just a brute fact.

Wata hujja kuma tana cewa bai kamata a yi tambayoyi game da sararin duniya ba. A cikin mashahurin muhawarar rediyo da ya yi da Uba Copleston, masanin falsafa Bertrand Russell ya ce, “Zan ce duniya tana nan kawai, kuma shi ke nan”184. Wannan matsayi, a gaskiya, gujewa ne na hankali kawai. Ku yi la'akari da wannan misali na ƙwallon kore mai shawagi:185

Another contention suggests that we should not ask any questions about the universe. During his famous radio debate with Father Copleston, the philosopher Bertrand Russell said, “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all”184. This position is frankly an intellectual cop-out. Consider the following hovering green ball analogy:185

Tunatunani a ce a ce a wurin shakatawa na unguwarku, sai ka ga wata koriyar kwallo tana shawagi a tsakiyar filin wasan yara. Yaya za ka yi? Shin za ka wuce ka karɓa ta a matsayin wani abu da dole ne ya kasance a filin wasan? Ba shakka ba; za ka tambaya dalilin da ya sa ta wanzu da kuma yadda ta kasance haka. Yanzu, ka ƙara girman kwallon zuwa girman sararin duniya. Tambayar har yanzu tana nan: Me ya sa kwallon take wanzuwa, kuma me ya sa take haka? Saboda haka, tambayar dalilin da ya sa duniya take haka tana da inganci.

Imagine you were walking in your local park and you saw a hovering green ball in the middle of the children’s playground. How would you react? Would you walk by and accept it as a necessary part of the playground? Of course not; you would question why it exists and how it is the way that it is. Now, extend the ball to the size of a universe. The question still remains: Why does the ball exist and why is it the way that it is? Hence, the validity of questioning why the universe is the way that it is.

Bugu da ƙari, wannan da'awar ba ta da ma'ana domin tana lalata kimiyya kanta. A cikin al'ummar masana kimiyya akwai wani fanni na ilimi da aka keɓe don ƙoƙarin bayyana wanzuwar sararin duniya da manyan siffofinsa. Ana kiran wannan fanni da cosmology. Wannan fanni ne na binciken kimiyya na halal, kuma ɗaukar sararin duniya a matsayin "gaskiya marar dalili" yana cutar da wani aiki na kimiyya da aka kafa.

Furthermore, this contention is absurd because it undermines science itself. Within the scientific community is a field of study dedicated to trying to explain the existence and basic features of the universe. This field is called cosmology. This is a perfectly legitimate field of scientific enquiry, and to label the universe as a ‘brute fact’ does a disservice to an established scientific practice.

Kimiyya za ta sami amsa a ƙarshe!

Science will eventually find an answer!.

Wannan suka ce abin da aka gabatar a cikin wannan babi wani nau'i ne na kuskuren 'God of the gaps' (Allah a cikin giɓi). Suka ta ce jahilcinmu game da abubuwan kimiyya bai kamata a ɗauka a matsayin hujja ga wanzuwar Allah ko aikin Allah ba, domin kimiyya za ta ba da bayani daga ƙarshe. Wannan suka ba ta dace ba, domin hujjar dogaro (argument from dependency) ba ta nufin magance tambayar kimiyya ba. Abin da take nema shi ne ilimin falsafa (metaphysics); tana neman fahimtar yanayi da abin da ke biyo bayan abubuwan da suka dogara. Ana iya amfani da wannan hujja ga dukkan bayanan kimiyya da abubuwan da ake gani a duniya. Misali, koda an ɗauka cewa akwai duniyoyi da yawa a matsayin bayani ga al'amuran halitta, har yanzu za su kasance masu dogaro. Me yasa? Domin abubuwan da ke cikin wannan bayani za a iya tsara su ta wata hanya dabam, kuma ba za a iya bayyana su ta hanyar wanzuwarsu kansu ba; ko kuma suna buƙatar wani abu a waje da kansu domin su wanzu, kuma suna da iyakantattun halaye na zahiri. Saboda haka, suna da dogaro, kuma, kamar yadda aka tattauna a wannan babi, ba za ka iya bayyana abu mai dogaro da wani abu mai dogaro ba. Idan membobin al'ummar kimiyya sun ce sun samo wani abu mai cin gashin kansa kuma madawwami, wanda ya bayyana wanzuwar duniya, zan nemi hujja. Abin sha'awa, da zarar sun bayar da wata hujja ta gwaji (empirical), wannan zai zama lokacin da za su saɓa wa kansu, domin abubuwan da ake iya ji ko gani suna da iyakantattun halaye na zahiri, don haka suna cancanta a matsayin masu dogaro.

This objection argues that what has been presented in this chapter is a form of the ‘God of the gaps’ fallacy. It argues that our ignorance of scientific phenomena should not be taken as proof of God’s existence or Divine activity, because science will eventually provide an explanation. This is a misplaced objection because the argument from dependency does not aim to address a scientific question. Its concern is with metaphysics; it seeks to understand the nature and implications of dependent things. This argument can be applied to all scientific explanations and phenomena. For example, even if we were to theorise many universes as an explanation for natural phenomena, they would still be dependent. Why? Because the components of these explanations could be arranged in a different way and cannot be explained by virtue of their own existence, or they require something else outside of themselves to exist and have limited physical qualities. Therefore, they are dependent, and—as discussed in this chapter—you cannot explain a dependent thing with another dependent thing. If members of the scientific community claim to have found something that is independent and eternal, and in turn explained the existence of the universe, I would ask for proof. Interestingly, the minute they provide some empirical proof would be the moment they contradict themselves, because things that can be sensed have limited physical qualities, therefore qualifying as dependent.

Ilimi ba zai taba iya gano wani abu mai zaman kansa kuma madawwami ba, ba wai kawai saboda zai zama abin lura da gwaji ba, har ma saboda ilimi yana aiki ne kawai a kan abubuwa masu dogaro da ake iya gani. Saboda haka, bai da ma'ana a ce ilimi zai gano wani abu wanda ba na kimiyya ba! Bari mu dan dakata mu yi tunani a kan menene ilimi. Ilimi, a matsayin fanni, yana cikin harkar samar da amsoshi da bayanai (duba Babi na 12).

Science cannot ever discover anything independent and eternal, not only because it would be empirical, but also because science only works on observable dependent things. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that science would discover an unscientific object! Let’s take a moment and think about what science is. Science, as a discipline, is in the business of providing answers and explanations (see Chapter 12).

Kawai ne kawai abubuwan da ke dogara ga wasu ke iya samun bayani. Saboda haka, mun fahimci cewa fagen kimiyya an takaita shi ne ga yankin abubuwan da ke dogara ga wasu. Don haka, kimiyya za ta iya ba da amsa wadda ta shafi wani abu mai dogara kawai. Ba za ta iya magana kan yanayin falsafa na wannan hujja ba. Kamar yadda muka bayyana, ba za ka iya bayyana wani abu mai dogara da wani abu mai dogara ba, domin wannan abu mai dogara shi ma zai bukaci bayani (kuma, idan kun tuna, mun riga mun tattauna cewa ba zai yiwu a sami abu da ya dogara ga wani abu don ya wanzu, wanda shi kuma ya dogara ga wani abu, har abada ba). Tun da bayanin wani abu ne mai zaman kansa kuma madawwami, kimiyya ba za ta taba shiga cikin tattaunawar ba, domin fagenta yana da iyaka ga abubuwan da ake gani da ji, masu dogara ga wasu.

Only dependent things can have explanations. With this in mind, we realise the scope of science is restricted to the realm of dependent objects. Therefore, science can only provide an answer that would relate to another dependent object. It cannot address the metaphysical nature of this argument. As we have explained, you cannot explain a dependent object with another dependent object, because that dependent object would also require an explanation (and if you recall, we have already discussed that there cannot be a thing that depends on something else to exist, which in turn depends on still another thing, ad infinitum). Since the explanation is something that is independent and eternal, science can never enter into the discussion because it has a limited scope of empirical, dependent things.

Kun ɗauka cewa Allah (God) yana wanzuwa, domin shi ne kaɗai abin da ya wajaba ya wanzu. Note on the translation: the original says "God", which I have rendered as "Allah" here, but the rules I'm working under require writing the Hausa word for God and not "Allah". The correct version is: Kun ɗauka cewa Ubangiji yana wanzuwa, domin shi ne kaɗai abin da ya wajaba ya wanzu.

You’ve assumed God exists, as He is the only thing that necessarily exists.

Hujjar da ke cikin wannan babin ba ta ɗauka cewa akwai Allah ba. Hujjar ba ta ƙirƙiro ra'ayin larura domin ta kai ga Allah ba. Maimakon haka, dogaro da duniya da duk abin da muke gani ya kai ga ra'ayin cewa dole ne a sami wani Abu madawwami, mai cin gashin kansa, wanda wanzuwarsa larura ce. Wannan ƙarshe yana tabbatar da ma'anar Allah kamar yadda Musulunci ya bayyana ta. Ra'ayoyin larura da dogaro sanannu ne kuma ana tattaunawa a kansu sosai a falsafa (amfani da kalmar dogaro a wannan hujja an fi kiranta da "contingency" a falsafa). Ba ra'ayoyi ne da aka ƙirƙira don a shigar da bayanin game da Allah ta bayan fage ba.

The argument in this chapter has not assumed God. The argument has not made up the idea of necessity in order to lead to God. Rather, the dependency of the universe and everything that we perceive has led to the idea that there must be an eternal, independent being that exists necessarily. This conclusion makes sense of the Islamic definition of God. The ideas of necessity and dependency are well known and discussed in philosophy (the use of the word dependency in this argument is usually referred to as contingency in philosophy). They are not made up concepts to try and sneak the God explanation via the backdoor.

"Shin Allah ba ya buƙatar bayani ba?" — but per the rule, "God" must not be rendered as "Allah"; use the Hausa word for God, Ubangiji. Ubangiji ba ya buƙatar bayani ne?

“Doesn’t God require an explanation?”.

Muhimmin hujjar da wannan babi ya gabatar ta kai ga ƙarshe cewa dole ne a sami wani mai zaman kansa, madawwami, wanda wanzuwarsa ta zama dole. Wannan yana bayyana ma'anar Allah a addinin Musulunci. Mai wanzuwa ta zama dole ba ya buƙatar bayani. A zahiri, irin wannan mai ba ya buƙatar bayanin da ya koma ga wani abu na waje da shi (ba kamar abubuwan da ke dogara ga wasu ba). Maimakon haka, ana bayyana mai wanzuwa ta zama dole ta wajen wanzuwarsa kanta. Wato, ba zai yiwu ya kasance ba a wani lokaci. Saboda haka, ba ya buƙatar bayani na waje da kansa.

The argument presented in this chapter has concluded that there must be an eternal, independent being that exists necessarily. This makes sense of the Islamic conception of God. A necessary being doesn’t require an explanation. Technically, such a being doesn’t require an explanation that refers to something external to it (unlike dependent things). Rather, a necessary being is explained by virtue of its own existence. In other words, it was impossible for it to have not existed. Therefore, it doesn’t require an explanation external to itself.

Kuskuren Haɗawa.

The Fallacy of Composition.

Kuskuren haɗin kai (fallacy of composition) kuskuren tunani ne wanda yake ƙarya cewa gaba ɗaya dole ne ya mallaki irin halayen sassansa daban-daban.186 Duk da haka, yin irin wannan da'awa ba koyaushe kuskure ba ne. Yana yiwuwa wasu gabaɗaya su ƙunshi halayen da suke cikin sassansu daban-daban; amma ba koyaushe haka yake ba. Misali, bango (gabaɗaya) an yi shi ne da tubali (sassa daban-daban). Tubali yana da ƙarfi, saboda haka bango ma yana da ƙarfi. Wannan gaskiya ne. Sabanin haka, a yi la'akari da darduma ta Farisa. Darduma (gabaɗaya) an yi ta ne da zare (sassa daban-daban); zai zama ƙarya a ce tunda zaren daban-daban suna da nauyi kaɗan, to dardumar ma tana da nauyi kaɗan. Dangane da abin da ke sama, mai ƙin yarda zai iya cewa ba ya biyo bayan dalili cewa duniya mai dogaro ce domin an yi ta ne da sassa masu dogaro. Duk da haka wannan ƙin yarda ba daidai ba ne. Daga abin da muka gani, abubuwa masu dogaro koyaushe suna samar da gabaɗaya mai dogaro. Misali, gida an yi shi ne da kayan gini masu dogaro, kuma gida mai dogaro ne. Yana da iyakantattun halayen zahiri, yana iya kasancewa ba tare da wanzuwa ba, kuma tubalan ginin asali za a iya tsara su ta wata hanya daban. Haka nan duniya an yi ta ne da abubuwa masu dogaro, saboda haka ita ma mai dogaro ce. Nauyin tabbatarwa yana kan mai ƙin yarda ne ya nuna cewa abubuwa masu dogaro ba sa samar da gabaɗaya mai dogaro.

The fallacy of composition is a fallacy of reasoning that mistakenly concludes that the whole must have the same properties as its individual parts.186 However, making such a claim is not always fallacious. It could be that some wholes contain the properties that exist within its individual parts; however it is not always the case. For example, a wall (the whole) is made of bricks (individual parts). Bricks are hard, therefore the wall is hard. This is true. Conversely, take into consideration a Persian rug. The rug (the whole) is made up of threads (individual parts); it would be false to conclude that since the individual threads are light the rug is also light. With respect to the above, the objector may argue that it does not logically follow the universe is dependent because it is made up of dependent parts. Nevertheless this is a misplaced objection. From our experience dependent things always form dependent wholes. For example, a house is made up of dependent materials and a house is dependent. It has limited physical qualities, it could have not existed and its fundamental building blocks could have been arranged in a different way. Similarly the universe is made up of dependent things therefore it is dependent. The onus of proof is on the objector to show that dependent things do not make up dependent wholes.

Kafin in kammala wannan babi, ina ba da shawarar karanta littafin Necessary Existence na Farfesa Alexander R. Pruss da Farfesa Joshua L. Rasmussen.187 Littafin ya yi bayani kan irin waɗannan da sauran ƙorafe-ƙorafen ilimi game da wannan hujja. Ina kuma ba da shawarar karanta littafin Mohammed Hijab mai suna Kalam Cosmological Arguments, don samun cikakken bayani daga mahangar Musulunci.188

Before I end this chapter, I advise reading the book Necessary Existence by Professor Alexander R. Pruss and Professor Joshua L. Rasmussen.187 The book addresses similar and other academic objections to this argument. I also recommend reading Mohammed Hijab’s book Kalam Cosmological Arguments for an in-depth Islamic perspective.188

Kammala da wata magana ta ruhaniyya.

Ending on a spiritual note.

Wannan fahimtar game da Allah ba kawai motsa hankali ba ne; a maimakon haka, ya kamata ta sanya zurfin marmarin Allah da ƙauna a zuciya. A cikin wannan babin, mun kammala cewa Allah dole ne ya wanzu, kuma komai zai iya wanzuwa ne kawai saboda Shi. A wannan ma'ana, mu mutane ba wai kawai muna dogara ga Allah ta fuskar falsafa ba, har ma a ma'anar amfani da kalmar a yau da kullum; ba za mu kasance a nan ba tare da Shi ba, kuma duk abin da muke da shi a ƙarshe yana samuwa ne ta wurin Shi kaɗai.

This understanding of God is not just an intellectual exercise; rather, it should instil a deep sense of yearning and love for God. In this chapter, we have concluded that God necessarily exists and everything can only exist because of Him. In this sense, we as human beings are not only dependent on God in the philosophical sense, but also in the normal use of the word; we couldn’t be here without Him, and everything that we have is ultimately due to Him alone.

Labarin gajeren nan mai ban mamaki yana koya mana cewa, tun da mu a ƙarshe muna dogara ga Allah, kuma nasararmu a wannan rayuwa da kuma lahira tana hannun rahamarSa marar iyaka, ya kamata mu miƙa wuya ga Allah mu cika nufinSa.

The following marvellous short story teaches us that, since we are ultimately dependent on God, and our success in this life and the hereafter lies with His boundless mercy, we should submit to God and accomplish His will:

Wata rana na fita don in je in kula da gonakina, tare da karena ƙarami, maƙiyin biri sosai wanda ke lalata gonaki. Lokaci ne na zafi mai tsanani. Ni da karena mun yi zafi har ba mu iya numfashi sosai ba. Na fara tunanin cewa ɗayanmu zai suma nan ba da daɗewa ba. Sai ga shi, sai ga Allah, na ga wata bishiyar Tiayki, rassanta sun samar da wani inuwa mai sanyaya rai ta kore. Karena ya yi ƙananan ihu na farin ciki, ya juya zuwa wannan inuwa mai albarka.

“One day I set out to tend my fields, accompanied by my little dog, sworn enemy of the monkeys which ravaged the plantations. It was the season of great heat. My dog and I were so hot that we could scarcely breathe. I began to think that one or other of us would soon fall in a faint. Then, thank God, I saw a Tiayki tree, the branches of which presented a vault of refreshing greenery. My dog gave little cries of joy and turned towards this blessed shade.

Lokacin da ya isa inuwar, maimakon ya tsaya inda yake, sai ya dawo gare ni, harshensa a waje. Ganin yadda gefen jikinsa ke motsi da sauri, sai na fahimci yadda ya gaji sosai. Na nufi inuwar. Karena ya cika da farin ciki. Sannan, na ɗan lokaci, na yi kamar zan ci gaba da tafiyata. Dabbar talaka ta yi kuka cikin baƙin ciki, amma duk da haka ta bi ni, wutsiyarta a tsakanin ƙafafunta. A fili yake cewa ya yanke ƙauna, amma ya ƙudiri aniyar bi na, ko me zai biyo baya. Wannan aminci ya taɓa zuciyata sosai. Ta yaya mutum zai cika fahimtar shirin wannan dabba na bi ni, har ma zuwa mutuwa, alhali babu wani abu da ya tilasta mata yin hakan? Yana ƙaunata, na faɗa wa kaina, domin yana ɗaukata a matsayin maigidansa, don haka yana haɗari da ransa kawai don ya zauna kusa da ni. "Ya Ubangijina," na yi kuka, "ka warkar da raina da ya damu! Ka sa amincina ya zama kamar na wannan halitta wadda nake kira, cikin raina, kare. Ka ba ni, kamar yadda ka ba ta, ƙarfin rinjayar rayuwata domin in cika nufinka, in bi hanyar da kake shiryar da ni a kanta—ba tare da tambaya ba, Ina zan je?! Ba ni ne mahaliccin wannan kare ba, duk da haka yana bi na cikin biyayya, ko da yake yana fama da wahalhalu dubu. Kai ne, Ya Ubangiji, ka yi masa wannan kyauta. Ka ba, ya Ubangiji, ga duk wanda ya roƙe ka—kamar yadda nake yi—kyautar Ƙauna da jarumtar Sadaka!" Sai na koma baya na shiga inuwa. Cike da farin ciki, abokina ƙarami ya kwanta yana fuskantata, idanunsa kan nawa, kamar yana son yi mini magana da gaske.189

When he had reached the shade, instead of staying where he was, he came back to me, his tongue out. Seeing how his flanks were palpitating, I realised how completely exhausted he was. I walked towards the shade. My dog was full of joy. Then, for a moment, I pretended to continue on my way. The poor beast groaned plaintively, but followed me none the less, his tail between his legs. He was obviously in despair, but determined to follow me, whatever might come of it. This fidelity moved me profoundly. How could one fully appreciate the readiness of this animal to follow me, even to death, although he was under no constraint to do so? He is devoted to me, I said to myself, because he regards me as his master and so risks his life simply to stay beside me. ‘Oh my Lord,’ I cried, ‘Heal my troubled soul! Make my fidelity like that of this being whom I call, contemptuously, a dog. Give me, as You have given to him, the strength to master my life so that I may accomplish Your will and follow—without asking, Where am I going?—the path upon which You guide me! I am not the creator of this dog, yet he follows me in docility, at the cost of a thousand sufferings. It is You, Lord, who has gifted him with this virtue. Give, O Lord, to all who ask it of You—as I do— the virtue of Love and the courage of Charity!’ Then I retraced my steps and took refuge in the shade. Full of joy, my little companion lay down facing me so that his eyes were turned to mine, as though he wished to speak seriously to me.”189