Ulimwengu hauwezi kujiumba wenyewe, kisha kuunda sheria zinazodhibiti kuwepo kwake.
The universe cannot create itself, then create the laws that control its existence.
Wala hatuwezi pia kuhusisha kuibuka kwa uhai na ulimwengu usio na uhai. Kwa hiyo, maumbile ya binadamu wala akili ya binadamu haziukubali kuibuka kwa ulimwengu au uhai bila Muumba anayeendelea kuudhibiti. Kwa kweli, sayansi ya vitu (sayansi ya kimaada) sasa pia inaukataa.
Nor can we attribute the emergence of life to a lifeless universe. Hence neither human nature nor human intelligence accepts the emergence of the universe or life without a Creator who continues to control it. Indeed material science is now rejecting it as well.
Russell Charles Artist, Profesa wa Biolojia katika Chuo cha David Lipscomb, Nashville, Tennessee, anasema:
Russell Charles Artist, Professor of Biology at David Lipscomb College, Nashville, Tennessee, says:
Nadharia nyingi zimetolewa katika jaribio la kupata seli hai kutoka kwa vitu visivyo hai. Baadhi ya watafiti wanadai kwamba uhai umetokana na protogene, au kupitia virusi, au kupitia mkusanyiko wa molekuli kubwa za protini, jambo ambalo linaweza kutoa taswira kwamba pengo kati ya kisicho hai na kilicho hai hatimaye limevukwa. Kwa kweli, ni lazima ikubalike kwamba majaribio yote ya kuzalisha vitu hai kwa njia ya majaribio kutoka kwa vitu visivyo hai yameshindwa kabisa.
Many theories have been brought forward in the attempt to derive living cells from inanimate matter. Certain investigators are claiming that life has originated through the protogene, or through viruses, or through an aggregation of large protein molecules, which may leave the impression that at last the gap between the lifeless and the living has been spanned. Actually it must be admitted that all attempts to produce living matter experimentally from inanimate matter have failed utterly.
Zaidi ya hayo, si kwa ushahidi wa moja kwa moja ndipo mtu anayekataa kuwepo kwa Mungu anaweza kuthibitisha kwa ulimwengu unaosubiri kwamba mkusanyiko wa kubahatisha wa atomi na molekuli ni uhai, unaoweza kujidumisha na kujiongoza kama seli zinazoelezwa hapa. Hasha. Yeye anaikubali hili kama imani. Ni tafsiri yake binafsi ya mambo yanayoonekana kwetu sote, kwamba mkusanyiko wa kubahatisha ndio ulioleta seli ya kwanza. Lakini hii ni kukubali muujiza mkubwa zaidi kuliko kuamini kwamba Akili ndiyo iliyoiita katika kuwepo! Ninasisitiza kwamba kila moja ya seli hizi (kila moja ikiwa mfumo wenye ugumu na udhaifu mkubwa hadi utendaji wake kamili umeshindwa kuchunguzwa nasi hadi sasa), pamoja na mabilioni yake yote duniani hapa, bila shaka yanatoa hitimisho lenye msingi wa kuaminika — la Akili, au Ufahamu, au Fikra, ambayo tunamwita Mungu. Sayansi inakubali na kuukubali hitimisho hili.
Furthermore, it is not by direct evidence that the one who denies the existence of God proves to a waiting world that a fortuitous aggregation of atoms and molecules is life, capable of maintaining and directing itself as do the cells described here. Not at all. He accepts this as a belief. It is his private interpretation of the facts visible to us all, that an accidental concourse brought the first cell into being. But this is to accept an even greater miracle than to believe that Intelligence called it into being! I maintain that each of these single cells (each a system so intricate and delicate that its complete functioning has so far escaped our study), and all the trillions of them on this earth, definitely present a justifiable inference — one of Mind, or Intelligence, or Thought, which we call God. Science both admits and accepts this inference.
Ninaamini kwa uthabiti kwamba kuna Mungu. 5
I believe firmly that there is a God. 5
Mwandishi hakuanza uchunguzi wake kutoka msimamo wa kidini, bali alitoa maoni kwa mtazamo wa kiobjektif, akitafakari juu ya sheria za maumbile. Hata hivyo, alifikia hitimisho linalounga mkono ukweli kama unavyoelezwa na msukumo wa kimaumbile na hisia ya asili ya kidini. Ukweli unapokuwepo, kila mtu anayeutafuta lazima autakutana nao, bila kujali njia anayoichukua. Ni wale tu ambao uwezo wao wa kupokea umesimama kufanya kazi ndio wasioweza kufikia ukweli.
The author did not start his investigations from a religious standpoint, but instead commented with an objective outlook, reflecting on the laws of nature. Yet he reached a conclusion that supports the truth as outlined by both natural inspiration and innate religious sense. When a truth exists, everyone who seeks it will inevitably come across it, regardless of what route he takes. It is only those whose receptive faculties have stopped functioning that cannot attain to the truth.
Wale wanaokataa kuwepo kwa Mungu ni watu ambao hoja yao inapingana na mantiki ya maumbile, akili na uwepo wa ulimwengu wote. Inaonekana wanasumbuliwa na kuharibika kwa uwezo wao wote wa kupokea na kuhisi. Ni vipofu, kama Mungu Mwenyewe anavyowaelezea: “Je, basi, yule anayejua kwamba kile kilichoteremshwa kwako kutoka kwa Mola wako ni Haki ni sawa na yule aliye kipofu? Ni wenye akili tu ndio wanaokumbuka.” ({13: 19})
Those who deny God’s existence are people whose argument is in conflict with the logic of nature, reason and universal existence. They seem to suffer from the malfunctioning of all their receptive faculties. They are blind, as God Himself describes them: “Is, then, he who knows that what has been revealed to you by your Lord is the Truth like one who is blind? Only those who are endowed with understanding keep this in mind.” (13: 19)
Kwa kuwa hii ndiyo maelezo yao ya kweli, inafuata kwamba nadharia yoyote ya kijamii, kisiasa au kiuchumi wanayoibuni, pamoja na nadharia yoyote wanayobuni kuhusu ulimwengu, maisha ya binadamu na historia, lazima ichukuliwe na Muislamu kuwa si zaidi ya kupapasa gizani kwa mtu kipofu aliyepoteza hisia zake zote, angalau kuhusiana na kuelewa maisha ya binadamu na jinsi yanavyopangwa. Hakuna Muislamu anayeweza kukubali chochote anachokiunda mtu wa namna hiyo, achilia mbali kukifanya msingi wa mtazamo wake wa maisha au kanuni ya kuishi.
As this is their true description, it follows that any social, political or economic theory they come up with, as well as any theory they formulate, on the universe, human life and history must be viewed by a Muslim as no more than the groping in the dark of a blind person who has lost all his senses, at least with regard to understanding human life and how it is organized. No Muslim can adopt anything such a person formulates, let alone make it the basis of his view of life or code of living.
Hili ni jambo la imani, si mjadala wa kiakili. Mtu anayedai kwamba ulimwengu wa kimaada umejiumba wenyewe na kuanzisha maisha ya binadamu, kisha akalifanya dhana hiyo msingi wa itikadi yake na kanuni yake ya maisha, amekosea tangu mwanzo wa fikra na wa mafundisho yake. Miundo yote na kanuni zote zenye msingi wa namna hii haziwezi kuleta jema lolote.
This is a matter of faith, not an intellectual argument. A person who argues that the material world has created itself and initiated human life, and makes this concept the basis of his ideology and code of living errs in the starting point of thought and doctrine alike. All structures and rules that have such a basis cannot bring any good.
Hawana sehemu yoyote ya kukutana hata na maelezo yoyote ya maisha ya Mwislamu ambaye dhana zake za msingi na kanuni yake ya maisha huanzia katika imani ya upweke wa Mungu na uumbaji wake wa ulimwengu ambao wakati wote unabaki chini ya mapenzi ya Mungu.
They have no meeting point even with any detail in the life of a Muslim whose basic concepts and code of living start with the belief in God’s oneness and His creation of the universe which remains subject to God’s will at all times.
Kwa hiyo, kusema kwamba kinachoitwa 'ujamaa wa kisayansi' hakitegemei ufanyaji wa kimaada ni kuonyesha ujinga. Kukubali 'ujamaa wa kisayansi', wakati una msingi na mtazamo wa namna hiyo, ni kuiacha kabisa Uislamu kama imani, dhana na mfumo wa maisha. Haiwezekani kuchanganya ujamaa wa kisayansi na kumwamini Mungu. Kujaribu kufanya hivyo ni kujaribu kuchanganya Uislamu na kutokuamini.
Hence, to suggest that so-called ‘scientific socialism’ is independent of materialism betrays ignorance. Adopting ‘scientific socialism’, when it has such a basis and line of thinking, constitutes a total turning away from Islam as a faith, concept and code of living. It is not possible to combine scientific socialism and belief in God. To try to do so is to try to combine Islam with unbelief.
Watu lazima wachague kuamini Uislamu au ujamaa wa kisayansi (materialism). Wakiamini Uislamu, hawawezi kukubali ujamaa wa kisayansi. Uislamu ni zaidi sana ya imani na kanuni ya moyo. Ni mfumo unaotegemea itikadi. Kwa upande mwingine, ujamaa wa kisayansi unatokana na falsafa ya kimaada, inayoamini kwamba maisha ni maada tu, na inakataa kabisa kuwepo kwa Mungu. Hatuwezi kabisa kutenganisha mambo hayo mawili. Kwa hiyo, lazima kufanya uchaguzi kati ya hayo mawili. Kila mtu yuko huru kufanya uchaguzi wake, lakini kila mtu lazima awajibike kwa uchaguzi wake.6
People must choose either to believe in Islam or in materialism. If they believe in Islam, they cannot adopt scientific socialism. Islam is much more than a faith and a conviction. It is a system based on an ideology. On the other hand, scientific socialism is based on materialistic philosophy, which believes that life is matter, and denies the existence of God altogether. We simply cannot separate the two. Hence, a choice between the two must be made. Everyone is free to make his or her choice, but everyone must be responsible for their choice.6