Applicable Translations हिन्दी සිංහල தமிழ் Español ગુજરાતી عربي

Why does Islam restrict the theories of the origin of existence in the inevitability of the existence of one valid truth?

The existence of diverse theories and convictions among mankind does not negate the fact that there is only one valid truth. For example, regardless of the number of concepts and notions that people may have about the transportation means someone uses who owns a black car, this does not negate the fact that he owns a black car. Even if the whole world believes that this person's car is red, such a belief does not make it red. There is only one truth here and that is: the car is black.

So, the diversity of concepts and notions about something does not negate the fact that this thing has one established truth.

Bearing in mind that Allah has the highest attributes, no matter how diverse people's concepts and notions are about the origin of existence, this does not negate the existence of one truth, and that is: the existence of the One and Only Creating God Who has no form known to mankind and Who has no partner and no child. Thus, if the whole world thinks that the Creator is embodied in the form of an animal or a human being, for instance, this does not make Him so, as He is far exalted above that.

Does the Muslim accept the theories of the relativity of morals, history, and others?

It is illogical to leave the decision up to a person, who is driven by his personal desires, to decide whether rape is something evil or not; rather, it is evident that rape in itself is a transgression against man's rights and a violation of his value and freedom, which indicates that rape is evil. The same applies to homosexuality, which violates the normal universal laws and the intimate relations out of wedlock. As a matter of fact, what is right is right even if the whole world agrees that it is wrong, and what is wrong is clear like the sun even if all mankind approve of it.

The same applies to the history as well, even if we assume that each era must write the history from its own perspective because the estimation of each era to what is important and significant varies from one era to another, this still does not make history relative because it does not negate the fact that events have one truth, whether we like it or not. History that is recorded by mankind, which is liable to distortion and inaccuracy and which is based on personal whims, is not like history that is recorded by the Lord of the worlds, which is extremely precise concerning the past, present, and the future.

What is the evidence on the existence of one absolute truth for the origin of existence and morals?

The statement that there is no absolute truth, which is adopted by many, represents in itself a belief concerning what is right and wrong, and those who adopt it are trying to impose it on others. They adopt a certain standard of behavior and try to compel all people to stick to it. This way, they infringe the same rule that they claim to be adhering to, a situation that reveals self-contradiction.

Evidence on the existence of one absolute truth is as follows:

. The conscience (the inner deterrent): It is the number of instructive and moral principles that restrict the human behavior. It indicates the fact that the world follows a certain course and that there exist right and wrong. Such moral principles are social obligations that are not debatable and that cannot be put to a referendum. They are social facts that the society cannot dispense with in terms of their content and meaning. For example, disrespecting parents and stealing are always regarded as an abominable behavior, and cannot be interpreted as truthfulness or respect. This generally applies to all cultures in all eras.

. Science: It means realizing things the way they truly are. It is knowledge and certainty. Hence, science essentially depends on the belief in the existence of objective facts in the universe that could be discovered and proven. Or else, what could be studied if there do not exist established facts? And how can one know whether or not the scientific conclusions are true? Actually, the scientific rules themselves are based on the existence of absolute facts.

. Religion: All religions around the world provide a concept, meaning, and definition of life due to man's dire need for getting answers to the most profound questions. Through religion, man searches for his source and his destiny, and seeks to find inner peace that cannot be attained except by finding such answers. The existence of religion itself is a proof that man is not just an evolved animal. it is a proof that there is a sublime objective behind life. It is also a proof of the existence of a creator who created us for a purpose and who instilled in man's heart a desire to know him. In fact, the existence of the Creator is the criterion of the absolute truth.

. Logic: All human beings have limited knowledge and minds, thus, it is logically impossible to issue statements of absolute negation. Thus logically, man cannot say: "There is no God", because saying such a statement requires possessing absolute knowledge about the whole universe, from the beginning till the end. Since this is impossible, therefore, the utmost that man can do is to say: "According to my limited knowledge, I do not believe in the existence of Allah."

. Harmony: Denial of the absolute truth leads to:

- Contradiction with our certainty concerning the soundness of what lies in the conscience and life experiments and with reality.

- Non-existence of the right and wrong in anything. So, if I regard the fact of ignoring the traffic rules, for instance, as something right, I will put others' lives to risk. Consequently, there will be a collision between the standards of the right and wrong among people and it will be impossible to be certain about anything.

- Man will be absolutely free to commit whatever crimes he likes.

- The impossibility of setting laws or achieving justice.

This is because absolute freedom will turn man into an ugly creature, as it has been undoubtedly proven that he is incapable of bearing such freedom. So, what is wrong is wrong even if the whole word agrees on its being right, and the only valid truth is that morals are not relative and that they do not change with the change in time or place.

. Order: The non-existence of an absolute truth leads to chaos.

For example, if the law of gravity were not a scientific fact, we could not be sure of standing or sitting in the same place unless we do this again. We could not be sure as well that one plus one equals two every time. This will gravely affect the civilization, as scientific and physical laws will be of no significance, and it would be impossible for people to buy and sell things.