Leaving Islam




Where is God?

By Ali Sina

There is not a day that a new calamity does not hit a group of people, destroying their lives and bringing much pain and misery. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, plagues and incurable diseases every day claim their own share of devastations and deaths. "Where is God?" is the unheard cry of the victims of these “acts of God”

God as described in the Semitic religions, is a compassionate, omnipotent, all hearing all seeing god. If that were true, then a god, who witnesses the suffering of his creatures and does not respond to their cry for help, is an unjust, callous, and cruel god. Thousands of children are dying every day around the world by draughts, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters or as we call them the "acts of God". The victims of these natural  “holocausts” cry in desperation, pray with anguish, weep in silence, yet God does not care or is unaware that they need help. What god is this God? Where is his justice? What happened to his claim of being the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful?

This very fact proves:
a) God is not hearing the cry of his creatures,
b) he is incapable of helping them or
c) he is a sadistic merciless, ruthless, tyrant that enjoys watching the suffering of his creatures just as  Roman Emperors enjoyed watching people being devoured by lions or killed in coliseums.

If this is the god of this universe, I want no part of it. I abhor a god who is less compassionate than me and therefore inferior to me; who does not feel the pain of his children the way I feel; who cares less of their suffering than I do. If this is the God, then perhaps it is time that we, the mortal humans, send a messenger to him teaching him some of our humanistic values. We could teach him a lesson of Justice, a word of compassion, tell him about helping those that are in need, rescuing those who are in danger, soothing the pain of those who are suffering, saving the world from disease, pain and unnecessary calamities. We probably could even help him to redesign the world. If I was chosen to be a messenger to God, I will tell him that it is unfair to make some of the creatures, meals for others. I will tell him that his justice sucks and his apathy is nauseating.

Yet it seems that none of that bothers the supporters of this god. They say that God can do “whatever he wishes” and no one is to question him and his authority.

Why not? If God made us with the capacity to distinguish between good and evil , to the extent that we, the humans, universally agree that killing and inflicting pain is evil and helping someone in need is good, why should he not live and act by the same standards? If what he wants us to believe as good, is diametrically different to what he does, how are we supposed to know he is good? Isn't it absurd that he makes us feel sympathy; compassion and love for our fellow human beings, telling us that these are good then he would do exactly the opposite? As Galileo said, "why did he gave us reason, if he wanted us to forgo its use?"
Let us make it clear that we are not talking about God but the god as perceived by Muhammad and the desert religions that inspired him to launch his prophetic career. Muhammad's perception of God was the same as taught to him by his idol worshipping society. The Mesopotamians and the people of Asia Minor believed in anthropomorphic gods. They made their gods in their own image and similitude. Gods were immortal "people". They were like men and women, with especial powers. They were supermen and wonder women with the same psyche of their creators, the primitive humans. Each nation adopted one of the gods as their patron and protector, whose job was to give them strength to fight against the enemy who followed other gods. They attributed their victory to the greatness of their god. Messengers of these gods where abounding. They talked to their followers, demanded sacrifices and donations to the priests. (see Leviticus). Eventually people matured and because religion is nothing but the figment of human mind, their concept of God also matured. They could no more believe in a multitude of gods, each competing with the other over the allegiance of the people. So, as different cultures intermingled and international commerce flourished, polytheism gave way to monotheism. For example, although Christ did not think much of the non-Jews comparing them to dogs, (Mat 15:26) Paul his apostle, the salesman of Christianity to the West, modified the religion of his master and changed its exclusivist character to make it palatable to the pagan nations of Europe. He even accepted their "unknown god" to be the same as Yahweh, the god of the Jews (Act 17:22,23). So what Muhammad did was nothing new. He rehashed the monotheistic view that was already accepted by most of the people, including the Hanifies a group who considered themselves, to be the followers of Abraham to which Muhammad belonged. Arabs already believed in Allah. And Allah, whose original name was Enlil, was the chief of many gods, and as the legend has it his throne was over the waters, just as Muhammad described in Quran.

So this god of the Semitic religions is actually an evolution and amalgamation of many gods. Although now most of us have come to believe that monotheism is an indisputable, self-evident fact, its god is nothing but one (or amalgamation of several) of the ancient gods. He is still an anthropoid. He gets angry, becomes happy, rewards, answers the prayers and does pretty much the same things, we humans do. This god as described by Muhammad, is a petty, paranoid, petulant god who is vengeful, unforgiving, irrational and ruthless. Forget about what he CLAIMS to be. Read between the lines and pay attention to what he DOES and commands. His actions speak louder than his words. And his actions are far from those behooving a wise and merciful god.

Is it more reasonable to believe that God is a merciless tyrant as described in the Quran or that the Quran is a false book?

I opt to believe in the second case. I refuse to accept a lunatic god as described in the Quran. I do not believe that Muhammad received any revelation or that he had any knowledge of divine reality.

It is surprising that while so many people admit that there is something unjust in the structure of this world they accept all that injustice under the pretext that God must know what he is doing and we are not to even think of questioning him.  Instead of assuming that a merciful God has an esoteric reason for committing horrific acts, the traditional definition of God needs to be replaced.

All the evidence shows that the God as described in the Quran and the Bible is not wise, compassionate and loving, although this is what these books claim. Even if that was true, I cannot believe in a god that is wise, loving and compassionate. And I cannot believe in a god that sends messengers, answers prayers, rewards or punishes. Because in the first case a god that possesses attributes, is being separated from his attributes. A being cannot be infinite unless you and I are part of it. And in the second case, a god that acts is limited in time and in space.  What if we did not think of God as wise, but as wisdom? What if we did not view him as loving, but love? What if God was not compassionate but compassion? What if God was not a "being"? What if It was not a "thing", things have attributes. What if we thought of God as the Principle underlying the creation? What if God was the Reality? Reality is formless, eternal and unchanging. As the Reality, God would not have attributes. It would be the Principle behind the process of creation. It would be the Principle and the creation the process. The Principle does not act. It does not create, it does not send messengers nor is it aware of you, me, and the entire creation. Being aware is an attribute. God has no attributes. Instead God is awareness itself. It is not knowing, but knowledge itself. It is not loving, but love itself.

Note that I did not use the pronoun "he" or "she" to speak of God, but "It"; because God is not a person. "It", is a Reality. "It", is the Ultimate Reality.

As the principle God is neither cruel nor kind. It does not answer your prayers and does not need your worshipping. Everything depends on this Principle but the Principle is indifferent towards all things. Just like the Sun, all life on Earth depends on it, yet it has no concerns for those things that it illumines and benefits.

You may ask: how could love exist without a person who could love? If love is seen as a feeling, it cannot exist per se. It needs a feeler. Therefore one cannot speak of cosmic Love without acknowledging the existence of a cosmic being or a personal god. But a personal god, as I explained in my articles on God, is a logical impossibility. The love that I speak of is not the love as a feeling but as a principle. Feelings cannot exist without feelers, but principles exist independent of everything.

Let me explain this with a simpler principle. Take the example of the law of gravity. Gravity as a force cannot exist without the existence of masses. Where there are no masses, there is no gravity and there is no weight. But gravity as a principle or as a law exists independent of masses. The law of gravity existed before the creation of this universe and will exist when this universe ceases. If there are other universes (which I see no reason why not) this principle must apply there too.

The principle is independent; it is eternal and immutable. Objects, however, manifest those principles in different degrees and forms.

Love as a principle exists independently. Objects reflect that principle and the more complex and evolved objects manifest it with more strength. Many animals and especially humans are capable of manifesting love in its most advanced form. What we experience as love is feeling. This feeling cannot manifest itself without us and it will disappear when we no longer exist. But Love as the principle exists forever.

Another example is True knowledge. One can ask how can knowledge exist without a knower? But we humans do not invent knowledge we discover it. False knowledge is not knowledge but is based on false assumptions. Knowledge as a principle exists even before we learn it and it would exist even when no one can discover it. 3 x 2 = 6. This is a fact. Whether we know it or we don’t; whether we agree with it or we don’t, this fact won’t change. Because mathematics is a principle! It does not have physical existence but it is not subjective either. It is a reality. Realities or principles exist independently without having any “form” of existence. The entire creation depends on them. They are the laws of the creation. They are HOW the creation came to be and HOW it evolves and HOW it is going to come to an end. They are HOW and everything else is WHAT! The love that you and I experience and feel, is a manifestation of the cosmic Love that exists as a Principle of this universe. Just as our bodies feel the gravity, our hearts feel the love. But just as gravity is a principle that exists independent of our bodies, love too exists independent of our hearts and any being. These are all my opinions. You don’t have to believe or accept them. I do not wish to promote a philosophy but rather ask questions and make you think. It is up to you to question the validity of your own beliefs, "doubt everything and find your own light".



Some Questions

You claim that math is a principle and that it is somewhat comparable to God


Yes math is a good example to understand God. But math is a manifestation of the Single Principle, it is not the Single Principle. In traditional religions it is believed that God created man in his own likeness. That does not mean that man is God or comparable to him.


Is there an infinite reward for learning math?


Yes there is infinite reward in learning math. The reward is learning HOW. The reward of knowing is in itself and in its application. Likewise the reward of understanding the Single Principle and living by it is in itself. We are not talking of an external reward like a paradise as is promised in Semitic religions


Does God, Math or the Principle care or even know whether I study math.


No the math does not care whether you study nor the Single Principle care whether you apply it in your life. We cannot live without the Principle but the Principle is independent from us. The Principle is not only HOW but also the interactive force of the all the elements of existence. It is the force behind the evolution.  By breaking the universal laws of the Single Principle we deprive ourselves of our own growth.


Aside from the practical consequences, is there anything wrong with a person choosing not to study math on a regular basis?


Many people do not know math. Animals are not even aware of it. But we all abide by it. Mathematical principles dominate everything. Likewise, the Single Principle is a non-being that is the mother of all beings. You can live without knowing about it but you cannot live without it.

Aside from practical consequences, if I think that the log(1) = 10 instead of 0, will it matter?


What we think of the Principle is inconsequential. But we cannot break itIf we do not learn the Principle, we make mistakes and we hurt ourselves. This absolute Reality that permeate every atom of the Universe is not to be worshiped but must be understood and abided.


Math is very different from my perception of God. I think what you are saying is that God is an abstract concept, math is an abstract concept therefore math is God.


I am not saying that God is an abstract concept nor I say math is. This universe, you and I, are abstract concepts. We are the product of the motion of electrons around the protons. We are functions of speed and energy. None of these exist. But math exist independent of the matter. Whether we are aware of it or not is not going to affect the mathematical principles. Math is not God, but it is a good example to understand the reality of God. There is a distinction between pure math and math as used in practice, between pure history (what really happened) vs. practical history (what’s written in the history books), between pure science, and practical science.  I maintain that practical math is never 100% true, that practical history is never 100% true, and that practical science (our human understanding of gravity, nature, and evolution) is never 100% true.  Pure math has all kinds of not so obvious assumptions that are always violated in practice.  So even though in practice our history, math and science are not perfectly true, we could still accept that pure math, science and history are infallible.


Which is equivalent to saying that Men and Women are intelligent therefore Men are Women


No this is not what I say.


But Love is as much an abstract concept as Hate is, and therefore they both should have equal claims to being the single principle or God.


Love and hate as feelings pertain to human realm. They are manifestations of attraction and repulsion of the Single Principle. These are laws of the universe. They do not abide by our moral evaluations. Morality is relative. Principles are absolute. But moral principles are absolute.Hate per se is not bad. I hate deceitfulness, I hate cruelty, I hate injustice. Equally love per se is not necessarily good. The egotistic love, love of crime, pedophilia are examples of that. What is bad, is loving what should be hated and hating what should be loved. This happens when we do not understand the Principle underlying the creation. The evil that you see in the world is due to breaking the laws of the Single Principle. As Socrates said, “ignorance is the mother of all sins”.


I think what you might be trying to say is as follows: A religious person has a meaning/purpose in life and because of that he feels fulfilled. Then an Ibn Ezra, Spinoza, or an Ali Sina comes along, and this purpose is gone. Now life is meaningless. So you want to show that we have love, math and other attributes such that life can be meaningful.


Life is not meaningless.  The purpose of learning (philosophy, theology, science, etc) is to understand the meaning of life. That is through observation of the world without. Also we can understand the meaning of life through meditation. That is through the introspection of the world within. If we discover that the meaning explained by religions is false, it does not mean that life has no meaning. When Galileo suggested that geocentricity is a false concept he was not rejecting the existence of the Earth. He was proposing a shift of paradigm to understand the Earth. By the same token I am not rejecting God. I am rejecting what has been said and believed about God. I am suggesting a shift of paradigm to understand God.







Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.