Halima walked into the living room and smiled at what she saw. Ahmet was sitting on the edge of the sofa deeply immersed in a book. He had taken off his shoes on the doormat and dropped his backpack nearby.

Although this wasn’t the first time his love for books had captivated her son-Ahmet had mastered reading two years ago in 2nd grade-Halima couldn’t help wondering about the content of this book that had kidnapped him. She placed his shoes on the rack, stored his backpack in the closet, and sat by his side sneaking a peek into the pages he was reading. She realized that it was an elementary school version of the Guinness Book of World Records.

As her son turned the pages, she saw pictures of the tallest man on earth, of the woman with longest fingernails, of the man with longest ear hair, of the woman with the most body piercings.

The book also displayed pictures of a man who pulled a plane, of a man who held 10 rattle snakes in his mouth by their tails, of a man who balanced a car on his head, of a man who ate 36 cockroaches in one minute, of a man capable of producing the loudest burp-you name it.

Reading the “fun facts” beside each picture, Halima was overtaken by a desperate wish to censor her son’s book selection from the school library. But how possible is that? As she felt at a loss for the right words to begin a conversation without triggering objection, Ahmet looked up and misjudging her interest in the book, he asked genuinely:

“Mom, which record should I break?”

Caught off guard, Halima rummaged through the pages with a let-me-see pose and decided to turn the question around:

“Which one would you like to break?”

“I think I could grow really looong nails,” Ahmet answered stretching the adjective.

“Goodness gracious!” sighed Halima trying to conceal her repulse. She looked at his face and resisting the temptation to snatch the book from him, she spoke softly.

“Ok, my son. Let’s say you broke the longest nails record. Who would benefit from it? You would spend your life growing your nails and depending on others for your basic needs, right?

“Your name would appear in this book,” she continued trying not to sound offensive, “you may earn some money, too, and then what?” Halima fell silent to let her question sink in.

Seeing Ahmet inconsolably disappointed, she switched into a softer tone so that Ahmet would not feel guilty for expressing his childish wish.

“The achievements you read in this book may look cool and fun, but are they bringing any good to anyone?

Ahmet, half-convinced, shook his head.

“Yet, there is a record I want you to break, my son,” Halima said, ending the silence with a new excitement that caused his eyes to shine with interest.

“Really?” asked Ahmet without disguising his thrill.

“Sure. I want you to break a record in …”-here her voice turned low and soft, almost into a whisper, as if confiding a secret or waiting for him to fill the blank-“… good deeds.”

Ahmet looked at her in disbelief. What kind of record is that?

“Yes, my sweetheart, there is such a record, and there are infinite ways to achieve it,” she said pausing to collect examples. “For instance, you can be a very trustworthy person who has never told even the tiniest lie.”

“Wow, that’s hard.” Ahmet said, the very thought making him blush.

“Yes it is,” Halima agreed. “But you can try your best.”

Halima decided that she should suggest more appealing options to her hard-to-convince son. “How about being a very generous person who donates all his wealth to help the less fortunate?” Halima continued. Ahmet couldn’t figure out how he could do that. His own allowance never seemed to be enough.

“You can open schools in areas of the world where people can’t even write their names.” Ahmet shot her a disbelieving look, “Can’t even write their names?”

“Think of a scientist who finds a cure to a deadly disease,” Halima went on slowly picking up the ideas along the way. “Imagine being a firefighter who risks his life to assist others in times of disaster. What do you say? Wouldn’t that be nice?” Ahmet nodded with a grin. He still had his toy firetruck as a keepsake.

“Oh, I almost forgot,” Halima added. “You can be an influential leader who stands for justice and peace.”

“Like Martin Luther King?” asked Ahmet, as elated as a student who has found the right answer before time has elapsed. He had visited Dr. King’s home in one of his social studies field trip.

Halima nodded with an assuring smile and continued, “How about being a super environmentalist who keeps our planet clean.”

Halima purposefully paused to see his reaction at her last words. Environmental awareness was one of the mission goals in his school. As she expected, a sparkle of recognition shone in his eyes which poured into words in no time.

“Yeah, I can fight against pollution and preserve the natural habitats for endangered animals,” he said very confidently.

Halima hugged Ahmet and smiled. Of all aspirations, no wonder this one had touched the cord of his animal loving heart.

“Throughout history,” Halima continued in a lecturing tone, “many men and women of great integrity have made an impact on the world. Some of their names are written in books, some not. Yet believe me my son that no goodness, even as small as mustard seed, ever perishes.”

As Ahmet was trying to figure out how a goodness can be as small as a mustard seed, his mom brought his train of thoughts to a halt. She took him gently by his shoulders and asked out of the blue: “Do you want to know a hero of our times?”

As soon as Ahmet nodded, they headed to the computer in his room. Ahmet pulled up a chair and sat nearby as his mom typed an unfamiliar name into a Google search.

Haji (Hacý) Kemal Erimez. Ahmet could tell right away that the name was Turkish. Born in USA, to Turkish parents, he was fluent in both languages.

In 0.19 seconds 5,200 search results came up arousing his curiosity. Ahmet watched a 45-min-Turkish video in silence trying desperately to match the pieces of information together and process them in his little brain. He wouldn’t be surprised if his mom asked him to summarize the video content, out of habit of course. His teacher did that too.

“O.K.,”-he thought to himself trying to make mental notes,-“this uncle, called Haji Kemal, spent all his money for the opening of three schools in Turkey and five in Tajikistan. If only I had a paper and pen to take notes,” Ahmet wished.

He thought of asking his mom to pause the video. Then he dismissed the thought altogether because he saw on the screen an army tank strolling through some dusty streets accompanied by soldiers carrying guns.

All ears, Ahmet listened as the video host explained that Haji Kemal not only spent his senior years tending to the needs of schools instead of retiring and relaxing with his grandchildren, he also refused to leave Tajikistan during a civil war that broke in 1992.

Ahmet couldn’t figure out who fought against whom. Despite the urge from Tajik authorities to leave the country, Haji Kemal and other Turkish teachers had very bravely decided to stay and defend the school if necessary. Apparently this had made a deep impression on local authorities, some of whom Ahmet heard mention Haji Kemal with great respect in their interviews, referring to him as “Ata,” which as mom explained to Ahmet meant father in the Tajik language and interestingly in Turkish, too.

Later Ahmet watched a group of Tajik students happily smiling at the camera, showing off their gold medals that they had earned for their country in international math and science Olympiads.

Then the video showed parts of Haji Kemal’s funeral in 1997.

Thousands of people stood in rows under the rain to pay their respects to a great man-as the video host put it. In tears, one Tajik student promised that he and his friends would never forget Haji Ata and that they would work hard to fulfill his dream: serving Tajikistan to prosperity.

At this moment Ahmet noticed that his mom was crying too. She looked back at him and trying to smile she said, “See Ahmet, these Tajik students have found their higher goals in life. That’s a good record to break.”

Ahmet was overwhelmed by a strange apprehension that he was missing some important point in all this discussion. “Haji Kemal amca,” Ahmet thought, instinctively replacing the word uncle with its equivalent in Turkish, “is a very good person, no doubt about it. In fact, he looks like my grandfather with his white hair and beard.” But what makes him a hero? Why do all these people admire him? Ahmet wondered. Realizing that the video, which had ended moments ago, had no more to offer, he decided to ask his mom.

“Mom, why is opening schools so important?”

Halima stood silent for a couple of seconds to think of the right shortcut to simplify this complex topic.

“Long ago,” she said, “I came across an inspiring saying that I think answers your question in a nice way. I don’t remember who said it, but anyway the quote went like this:

“Whoever opens a good school closes a prison.” By the way Ahmet fixed his gaze on her, Halima could tell that her curious son was perplexed by the school-prison link.

“Lack of education leads to ignorance, which in turn leads to poverty, and poverty most of the time leads to many unfortunate troubles for the individual or the society. Do you know what the word society means?” she asked to double check.

“Mom!” Ahmet protested in a tone that gave a hint that he was either amused or upset by such an easy question. “I am studying and comparing the Greek and American Democracies for my social studies this year!”

“Oh, so sorry to assume,” Halima smiled at his sensitive scholarly pride and continued. “Sound education-that is, nurturing of the mind and the heart-is a foolproof way to build a better, peaceful world.”

Ahmet, still not sure whether he understood everything right, felt a peculiar desire nonetheless to go back in time, meet Haji Kemal amca and kiss his hands, a typical Turkish gesture of showing respect.

Halima, looking at the digital clock on the computer screen, realized it was getting late and got up to set the table for dinner.

“Ahmet!” she called to shake him from his daydreaming, “Why don’t you start training for your record breaking by helping me in the kitchen right away?”

Ahmet, smiling, stood up promptly and, as erect as a soldier before the commander, duplicated the response of obedience, “Yes, ma’am!”

Halima laughed at his wittiness and patting him on the shoulder she said,

“Then go wash your hands, my champion.”

Mirkena Ozer had her major in Turkish language and literature. She lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

For any observed phenomenon, there can be many possible explanations. A chance-based mechanism could be one explanation. We usually associate chance as being indifferent to purpose, and intelligent design as being with a purpose. When a mechanism appears to be unconcerned with or incognizant of any possible outcome, we term it a chance-based, or random mechanism. In other words, chance is invoked when there appears to be no preference for one particular outcome over another.

While a chance-based mechanism can be one of the possible explanations for a phenomenon, we only consider it seriously when the probability of the proposed mechanism is significant. When the probability is insignificant, we must eliminate this possibility and consider other options. Otherwise, we may fall into what the mathema-tician/philosopher Dembski calls the ‘chance-of-the-gaps’ fallacy:

‘Statistical reasoning must be capable of eliminating chance when the probability of events gets too small. If not, chance can be invoked to explain anything. Scientists rightly resist invoking the supernatural in scientific explanations for fear of committing a god-of-the-gaps fallacy (the fallacy of using God as a stop-gap for ignorance). Yet, without some restriction on the use of chance, scientists are in danger of committing a logically equivalent fallacy’one we may call the ‘chance-of-the-gaps fallacy’. Chance, like God, can become a stop-gap for ignorance.’ [Demski, 98]

To illustrate this principle let us consider three examples. The first is from a movie, related by the same author. The event related concerns the supposed spontaneous combustion of a person.

‘In the movie ‘This is Spinal Tap’, the lead singer remarks that a former drummer in the band died by spontaneously combusting. Any one of us could this instant spontaneously combust if all the most rapidly moving air molecules in our vicinity suddenly converged on us. Such an event, however, is highly improbable, and we don’t give it a second thought.’ [Dembski, 98]

Let us consider two other examples: footprints in the desert and a novel placed next to a typewriter.

Footprints in the Desert

When a bedouin sees camel footprints in the desert, he does not attribute these to chance. He does not think that the wind, by chance, formed those patterns on the sand. Instead, he interprets them as signs that a camel has recently walked along this way. The probability of the chance-based scenario is simply too small. Having seen the patterns characteristic of the wind, the bedouin can be almost sure that the camel explanation is the correct one, even if he has not seen the camel itself.

Novel Placed Next to a Typewriter

Imagine you find a novel left next to a typewriter, next to which sits a monkey. One explanation for who might have written the novel could be that the monkey typed the novel, making words and sentences that make sense, solely by chance. We can view this as a chance-based explanation; up to now we have not witnessed any monkey that can appreciate human literature. To make this explanation more plausible, let us assume that when the monkey completes a page, a human checks the page and if it does not make any sense the page is thrown away. If there were an unlimited supply of paper and ink, and if the monkey were replaced by another monkey when it died, you might expect to see a few lines of meaningful literary work after thousands of generations. In the process you would expect to see mountains of thrown-out pages, containing meaningless sequences of letters. If you knew that the monkey could not live long enough to produce a novel, if you knew that it did not have access to enough paper, or if you could not find any thrown-out pages, you would simply have to eliminate the monkey hypothesis. You would consider other explanations, such as that there was a person who was capable of producing literary work, and this person typed the novel and left it next to the typewriter. The idea that a monkey could produce a novel by typing randomly, without regard to content (i.e. by chance) is simply too small a probability. It is not worthy of serious consideration.

These examples illustrate a general principle; highly improbable and ‘preferred’ (independently specified) patterns cannot be generated by chance-based mechanisms. The footprints in the first example illustrate highly improbable events, and shows us how one arrives at a conclusion by preference or purpose. Since Darwinian evolution relies on chance, there is only one way it can produce the diversity of life found on earth. This can be done by exhausting a significant proportion of the possibilities, producing useless organisms in the process, leaving the remains of the unsuccessful organisms on the way and by eventually producing a useful organism after using up a considerable amount of time, matter and space.

Blind or Not Blind?

Some evolutionists argue that evolutionary algorithms are not the same as a blind search, because they include a fitness function which favors certain outcomes over others. In a way, this imagined ‘fitness function’ evaluates which organisms are the most promising in each generation. To understand the concept of a fitness function, consider the selective breeding of animals. The breeders select the members that have the most desirable properties and continue to breed them. They might breed from only the most fertile chickens or the woolliest sheep and succeed in altering the characteristics of these animals. So, the selection criteria of the breeders can be regarded as a fitness function. However, in the case of selective breeding, the human breeder is the one who defines and applies this function. In the case of Darwinian evolution, there is no room for an intelligent being. So, the imagined fitness function must be a result of the physical laws of the universe. It must be a result of the conditions on earth

What the evolutionary algorithms do is to exploit the information already encoded in the fitness function. So, evolutionary algorithms simply ‘shift’ the problem into a different space. If we assume that this fitness function is a result of the conditions on earth, we have to remember that the conditions on earth are highly improbable and specified. So, if this fitness function is assumed to be capable of design, one must explain how it came to be in the first place. Secondly, this function is ill-defined. Even evolu- tionists themselves have difficulty defining what this function is or how it operates. Various attempts to define this function by evolutionists amount to a tautology in order to justify it. ‘In this formulation, the theory predicts that the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring, and it defines the fittest organisms as the ones which produce the most offspring.’ [Johnson, 91]. Noting this trend, the famous philosopher of science Karl Popper once wrote, ‘some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring.’ Since the fitness function is not well defined, it is also not possible to demonstrate how this function is capable of producing this diversity of life, neither scientifically nor mathematically. In experiments where evolutionary mechanisms were tested, they tend to favor simplicity, whereas in life we see increasing complexity. Limits of the Universe The famous physicist Carl Sagan once said, in reference to evolutionary processes, given enough time, chance will work miracles. While this statement can be true theoretically, one should also consider that chance, given enough time, will produce a disproportionately high ratio of useless outcomes before coming up with a miracle. Furthermore, the universe, as we have observed, has a limited age and a limited amount of matter. So the amount of time that we can assume chance has is limited. The amount of material to be used by the chance-based pro- cesses is also limited. So the next question is, given the age of the universe, the amount of matter in the universe and all the possible sequences of changes that can take place, what is the likelihood of chance producing a single living cell? The answer to this question is important because it will determine whether the chance hypothesis is worthy of our attention. Dembski explains that within the observed universe any probability below a universal probability bound remains improbable, even if it is assumed that all the resources available were exhausted in order to try out all the possibilities. He calculates this number as 10-150, that is 1 over 10 to the 150th power. The details of this calculation and what it means are explained by him as follows:

“It would take at least 1067 times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once.”

In the observable universe, probabilistic resources come in very limited supplies. Within the known physical universe there are estimated to be around 1080 elementary particles. Moreover, the properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 1045 times per second. This frequency corresponds to Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time. Finally, the universe itself is about a billion times younger than 1025 seconds (assuming the universe is between ten and twenty billion years old). If we now assume that any specification of an event within the known physical universe requires at least one elementary particle to specify it and cannot be generated any faster than the Planck time, then these cosmological constraints imply that the total number of specified events throughout cosmic history cannot exceed 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150. It follows that any specified event of probability less than 1 in 10150 will remain improbable even after all conceivable probabilistic resources from the observable universe have been factored in. A probability of 1 in 10150 is therefore a universal probability bound. Implicit in a universal probability bound such as 10-150 is that the universe is too small a place to generate specified complexity by sheer exhaustion of possibilities. Stuart Kauffman develops this theme at length in his book Investigations. In one of his examples (and there are many like it throughout the book), he considers the number of possible proteins of length 200 (i.e., 20200 or approximately 10260) and the maximum number of pairwise collisions of particles throughout the history of the universe (he estimates 10193 total collisions supposing the reaction rate for collisions can be measured in femto seconds). Kauffman concludes: The known universe has not had time since the big bang to create all possible proteins of length 200 [even] once. To emphasize this point, he notes: It would take at least 1067 times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once. [Dembski, 98] It should be noted that the precise value of this universal probability bound is not critical. Even an approximate value is enough to judge a proposed chance-based explanation for an observed phenomenon. Carl Sagan himself estimated the probability of humans evolving from a single living cell as one chance in 102,000,000,000, [Sagan]. Combining this estimate with the universal probability bound discussed above and using common sense, one can easily dismiss the chance hypothesis for the origin of life or for the diversity of life on earth. The Fossil Record Problem Associated with the chance hypothesis, there is also the problem of fossil record which we have not discussed in detail yet in this article. If the chance hypothesis is correct, the failed attempts of the blind processes should vastly outnumber those that are successful. This would imply that in the fossil record we should have found vast numbers of fossils of dysfunctional species compared with a tiny minority of successful species. Just as failed attempts would vastly outnumber successful ones, the fossils of such attempts should reflect the same ratio. While there are signs of extinct species in the fossil record, we do not find a huge record of the fossils of the kind of wild variation we would expect from blind mutations. While the reasons for the extinction of species like dinosaurs are debated, there is agreement that they were successful living organisms during their lifetimes. Conclusion To summarize, when a mathematician calculates the probability of chance producing life on earth, he or she can easily dismiss this explanation because of the aforementioned problems. Life is too complex and intricate. The lifetime of the universe and the amount of matter in it are insufficient to blindly exhaust all possibilities and arrive at the diverse life forms we see on earth. The fossil record does not reflect the ratio of unsuccessful attempts to successful ones we would expect from chance hypothesis. When presented with the chance-based theory of evolution, an objective mathematician would thus feel obliged to say, Either you have to shut off my intellect or I cannot accept this hypothesis. Life must be the product of an intelligent Designer who is All-Wise, Omniscient, Omnipotent and cognizant of what He is doing. The mathematician would thus come to the same conclusion as an unlettered bedouin, who is nevertheless a careful observer and a solid thinker: Camel droppings point to the existence of a camel. Footprints on the sand tell of a traveler. The heaven with its stars, the earth with its mountains and valleys, and the sea with its waves – do they not all point to the Maker, All-Powerful, Knowing, Wise and Caring?

References

• [Darwin, 93] Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin 8, 1860 Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• [Dembski, 98] William A. Dembski, The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998.
• [Dembski, 99] William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, Ill., 1999.
• [Johnson, 91] Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington DC, 1991.
• [Khan] Khan, M., trans. Sahih Al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings. Darussalam Publishers: 1997.
• [Sagan] Carl Sagan, F. H. C. Crick, L. M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 45-46.
• [Siddiqui] Siddiqi, A. H., trans. Sahih Muslim. Kitab Bhavan: 2000.
• [Harf] Harf Information Technology. Hadith Encyclopedia. Egypt: 1996. [Words] Nursi, S. The Words. The Light, Inc.: 1997.

Before proceeding to go into details relating to the subject of Divine Decree and Destiny, we had better give the translation of some relevant verses:

With Him are the keys of the Unseen. None but He knows them. He knows what is in the land and the sea. Not a leaf falls but He knows it, not a grain amid the darkness of the earth, naught of wet or dry but it is in a Manifest Book. (al-An’am, 6.59)

There is nothing hidden in the heaven or the earth but it is in a Manifest Book. (a1-Nanzl, 27.75) It is We Who bring the dead to life.

We record what they send (of their lives and conduct to the Hereafter) and what is left of them. All things we have kept in a Manifest Record. (Ya Sin, 36.12)

They say: ‘When (will) this promise (be fulfilled), if you are truthful?’ Say: ‘The knowledge is with God only, and I am but a plain warner.’ (al-Mulk, 67. 25-6)

Nay, but it is a glorious Qur’an. On a Preserved Tablet. (al Buruj, 85. 21-2)

In a sense, Decree and Destiny are of the same meaning, but in another, Destiny means pre-determination or pre-ordinance, while Decree means execution of this ordinance or putting it into effect.

To define more clearly and elaborately, Destiny means that from the microcosm (atoms) to the macrocosm (the universe as a whole), from particles to galaxies, God Almighty, Who knows everything down to the minutest and Whose Knowledge includes all space and time while Himself is absolutely beyond all time and space, gives existence in His Knowledge to all things or beings and assigns to each a certain shape, life-span, function or mission and certain particularities. This can be understood by an analogy-God’s is the highest comparison, and He is absolutely beyond all comparisons and different from whatever a man conceives of Him -with an author’s having the full and exact knowledge of the book he will write and arranging it in his mind in chapters, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words before writing it. In this sense, Destiny is almost identical with Divine Knowledge or Destiny is a title of Divine Knowledge, and is also called the Manifest Record or the Supreme Preserved Tablet.

Destiny also means that God makes everything according to a certain, particular measure and in exact balance. The Qur’an declares:

God knows what every female bears and what the wombs absorb and what they grow. And everything with Him is measured. (Al Ra’d, 13.8)

The sun and the moon are made punctual according to a calculation. The stars and the trees adore, in subservience to Him. And the sky He has uplifted; and He has set the balance, that you exceed not the balance, but observe the balance strictly, nor fall short thereof. (al-Rahman, 55. 5-9)

The exact balance and harmony in the universe clearly show the existence of Divine Destiny; that is, the universe, as a whole and with all the individual things or beings in it, which display an exact measure, balance, order and harmony, shows that everything is determined, measured, created and governed by God Almighty. Assertions like determinism, which is upheld by many, including even the supporters of the Marxist ideology, in explaining the order and operation of the universe including the human kingdom, are a tacit admission of Destiny, even though absolute determinism is incompatible with Islam in explaining the actions of man.

All seeds, fruit stones, measured and proportioned forms, and the extraordinary order and harmony of the universe, and its operation for billions of years without displaying the slightest breakdown or deviation in any part of it, all this demonstrates that everything takes place according to the absolute determination of God Almighty, Who is the All-Knowing and the All-Powerful. Each seed or fruit stone and even each ovum fertilized by a male sperm is like a case formed by Divine Power into which Divine Destiny has in-built the future life-history of a plant or an animal being. Divine Power employs atoms or particles according to the measure established by Divine Destiny as building blocks in growing the particular seed into the particular plant and the particular fertilized ovum into the particular being. This means that the future life-history of that plant or the animal being and the principles to govern its life are pre-recorded in the seed or the fertilized ovum as determining factors and processes.

Although the basic materials from which plants and animal beings, including human beings, are formed are the same, there is an almost infinite variety between species and individuals. The plants and animals that grow from the same constituent basic elements display such harmony and proportion, and yet such abundant diversity, that man cannot help but conclude that each of them is individually given its particular form and measure. It is Divine Destiny which establishes this measure.

A single seed displays Destiny in two ways: one by demonstrating the Manifest Record (Imamun Mubin), the other by displaying the Manifest Book (Kitabun Mubin). The Manifest Record is, as was pointed out above, another title for Divine Knowledge and Command, comprehensive of the universe both as a whole and with all its parts, big or small, and all the events in it. As everybody knows, the seed of a plant is also its ‘memory’. That is, a plant which grows from a seed also results in multiple seeds, in which the entire life-history of the plant have been recorded so that they can grow into new plants, which are almost identical with the original because plants do not have conscious spirits endowed with free will. Thus, besides demonstrating the Manifest Record and therefore Divine Destiny and Knowledge in which everything is present or exists with all its individualized particularities, a seed also indicates the Supreme Preserved Tablet (Lawhun Mahfuz) and corresponds to human memory in the human kingdom. By the way, since it indicates that the life-histories of creatures are recorded, a seed also points to afterlife.

The Manifest Book is another title for Divine Will and God’s creational and operational laws of the universe. If we call the Manifest Record Destiny Formal or Theoretical, the Manifest Book can be referred to as Destiny Actual. The future full- grown form of a plant or an animal being, which displays all the content of the seed or fertilized ovum, can be understood as its Destiny Actual.

In short, like seeds or plants or fertilized ovums and animal beings, everything in the universe clearly points to Divine Destiny, determining, judging, giving measure, particularizing and individualizing. True dreams which bring news of certain future events, are another, undeniable indication of Destiny or Divine ‘pre-determination’.

Question

Why is belief in Destiny included among the essentials of faith?

Answer

Because of self-conceit and the weakness of devotion, man tends to attribute to himself his accomplishments and good deeds and feels proud of himself. Whereas, as the Qur’an explicitly states, God creates you and what you do (al-Saffat, 37.96), it is the Divine Compassion which demands good deeds and the Power of the Lord which creates them. Whoever ponders over his life, he will realize and confess to himself that God has directed him to good acts, usually prevented him from doing wrong deeds and by endowing him with the sufficient capacity, power and means required for any accomplishment, favoured him with many accomplishments and good deeds. God guides man to good deeds and makes him succeed in willing and doing them, so the real cause of a man’s good deeds is the Divine Will. A man can possess and own them by means of faith and sincere devotion and by praying to God to be able to deserve them, consciously believing in the necessity of doing them and being pleased with what God has ordained for him. He can never be boastful of his good deeds and accomplishments and put on airs among people; what behoves him is to always be thankful to God and humble.

On the other hand, while attributing to himself his accomplishments and good deeds, man likes to absolve himself of his sins and misdeeds by ascribing them to Destiny. However, since God never likes a sin or wrong act, nor approves it, it is man himself who causes sins and commits them by his free will. Yet it is God Who creates sins (in the sense of enabling them to take place or giving them external existence) as well as good acts, simply because if He did not do so, the free will with which He has endowed man, would be annulled. Man wills to commit his sins. As was explained earlier, God calls man to good deeds, guides him to them and always inspires them in him, but man commits sins of his own free will and disobeys his Creator. Therefore, man is completely responsible for his sins and misdeeds. However, in order to protect himself against sins and the temptations of Satan and his carnal self, man must both try to remove his inclinations towards sins through repentance and asking forgiveness for them, and direct and exhort himself to do good deeds through prayer, devotion and trust in God.

In short, man has free will and is enjoined to follow the religious obligations and refrain from sins and wrong deeds. He cannot by any means ascribe his sins to God. Divine Destiny exists so that the believer does not grow proud of his good deeds by ascribing them to himself. Rather he must be thankful to God because of them. Man has free will so that the rebellious carnal self does not rid itself of the consequences of its sins by ascribing them to Destiny.

A second, important point to mention is that man usually complains about past events and the misfortunes that have struck him. Worse than that, he cannot save himself from falling into despair and abandoning himself to a dissipated life. He may even go so far as to complain against God. However, Destiny exists so that a man should relate past events and misfortunes to it in order not to be driven to despair and provide himself with relief, security and consolation. On the other hand, as will be discussed below, since Destiny does not exclude human free will, man is responsible for his future life and whatever he does consciously and intentionally.

In sum, whatever is (including misfortunes) should be considered in the light of Destiny, and what is to come, and sins and questions of responsibility, should be referred to human free will. In this way, the extremes of fatalism (jabr) and the denial of the role of Destiny in human actions (i’tizal, the view of the Mu’fazila) may be reconciled.