Book title: Finding Truth

Copyright 2016 by Haris Rani

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or by any information, storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the
copyright owner. The author, however, welcomes
translation works to other languages to be conducted
with the written approval from the author.

ISBN: 978-967-13757-0-9
First Edition: June 2016
Published by:
Haris Rani
 For my loving wife, Nurnazida Nazri.
Thank you for being my loving angel on this earth.
 Preface
In the Name of God, the Most Gracious and the
Most Merciful.
Getting older normally means that you are more
mature in thinking and wiser than when you were young.
You have more time because your body has less physical
energy to burn now than before. Growing old simply
means everything seems to slow down, your attitude
towards life is getting more relaxed; you enjoy it with a
reduced amount of joy, less passion and less eagerness.
You now spend more time pondering about things
you had done or stuff you might have missed out in life,
whether you have indeed accomplished your goals or if
your life is heading towards the path that would make
you truly happy. Youre constantly wishing your life to
be as meaningful possible. After all, happiness in life is,
indeed, the ultimate aim of every single person on earth.
Thus, you might constantly second guess yourself,
whether you can keep the happiness at a maximum at all
times.
Sometimes your mind goes even further than that,
like for myself, not only my own happiness but the
happiness of others. It develops into a quest for
Happiness in life and the relationship with God, thus
an appetite of yearning to know more about my God and
why I am here on this earth. My religion has clearly
stated who He is, and I could easily say that until now, I
am deeply satisfied with my religions arguments about
my God and of His existence.
But there are still some answers missing. Those
answers, which are very crucial for me, have not been
satisfactorily answered. Like why we are here in this
world, what is the purpose of life and purpose of creation
itself? These questions makes me want to think and
rationalise more, keep lingering in my mind, constantly
seeking my attention for real answers. They are mostly
not about who or how, but more about what and why. For
example, I believe that there should be a universal
answer on humans life issues. Because if I do rely on
my God as being the answer to the reasons of why I am
here in this world, then there should also be a logical
universal answer to lifes problems irrespective whether
one believe in God or not. With it comes the unending
urge to make it rest. I need to find the answers to this
question and the ones related to it before it is too late.
Before I dont have the energy and time to do so, before
death comes to visit me.
I have tried on many occasions to find the answers
but the results were not satisfactory. Since these
questions persist to exist, it makes me feel rather alone
in this quest. I long to have closure and I sincerely
believe there might be others who are also undergoing
the same predicament. The tipping point where I need to
desperately continue despite such loneliness came when
I was introduced to the word ontology (study about the
nature of existence or being) and epistemology (how
we can gain knowledge of it) by my PhD research
methodology lecturer, Dr Akbariah. Thanks to her, since
then, it has taken me away from my thesis writing and,
surprisingly, has opened up new doors of knowledge and
sharpened my inquisitive nature as a researcher. At least
I like to think it as such. ;-)
This book is the final outcome of my simple inquiry,
with my limited knowledge in the area of philosophy, to
answer all or some of those questions in a simple manner
as much as possible. It tries to make sense of our
existence and what we need to do, thus, God willing,
bringing closure to our minds. It is my sincere hope that
it will provide some satisfaction and make sense of our
lives and offer a reasonable perspective to it. On the
contrary, it might not be the actual answer that you are
looking for, but if it is, then I am glad to be the person
playing this role, with the hope that you would soon
progress into embedding it into your daily life.
Please dont have your 'mental guards' up.
Otherwise, it might be difficult to grasp these simple
assertions of mine. In my legal philosophy classes, I used
to say to my students to set their minds free whenever
entering the class; to leave their conscience and belief at
the door. This would compel them to free their minds,
thus, enabling them to evaluate new ideas and rationalise
for themselves, independently and sensibly, before
comparing and contrasting it to their own beliefs; either
to accept or to reject those ideas being investigated. This
is crucial whenever undergoing any type of
investigation, to be impartial in order to see the other
persons point-of-view. Thats what judges do... causing
them to stand impartial and without prejudice when
deciding cases. Similarly this also goes to the scientists
in conducting their researches.
I hope that this book will convince you on what is,
for me, the ultimate truth. With much anticipation that it
would do justice to the time you will spend on reading it
and, hopefully, remain glued to it till the end. I also hope
that this book will provide you with that needed closure,
enabling you to reboot your mind into a completely
new outlook on the direction and purpose of how to live
your life on this earth.

****
 Contents
Preface ...................................................... 6
Introduction ............................................ 14
Who are we? ........................................... 21
Why are we here? ................................... 34
What is the meaning of life? .................. 52
What is the purpose of creation? ............ 65
Can GOD really exist?........................ 66
God is Majestic, the Greatest.............. 71
Why does GOD seem to be unfair? .... 79
How can a just GOD be unjust? ......... 83
What is the purpose of life? ................... 92
The Purpose of life ............................. 93
Ethics (Moral Philosophy) ................ 107
Ethical Dilemma ............................... 111
Morality ............................................ 114
Free will ............................................ 118
Choice ............................................... 124
Justice ............................................... 126
Social Justice .................................... 128
Moral Justice .................................... 130
Legal Justice ..................................... 132
Court of Justice ................................. 133
Crime ................................................ 134
Civil wrongs ..................................... 138
Equality............................................. 139
Egoism .............................................. 140
Altruism ............................................ 141
Animal Cruelty ................................. 141
Environmental Ethics ....................... 142
World Economy................................ 143
World System Theory....................... 144
Science .............................................. 146
Big Bang ........................................... 147
Time .................................................. 149
Evolution .......................................... 151
World Disasters ................................ 153
Doubts? ............................................. 154
The Law of Identity .......................... 154
Law of Non-contradiction ................ 155
Faith .................................................. 156
Religion ............................................ 159
 Afterlife ............................................ 160
Revelations ........................................... 163
Conclusion............................................ 171
Al Mutakabbir .................................. 176
Then did you think that We created you uselessly and
that to Us you would not be returned?

Al Quran 23:115
 Introduction
Everyone will come across these questions
sometimes during their life span; why am I here in this
world? What is the meaning of life? What is the purpose
of creation? What is the purpose of life? And how do I
fit in with everything else that exists?
Still, there are not many people who want to spend
time discussing these questions. Maybe because they
realise that by talking about them, it would just be a
waste of time since there are no real answers. Plus, it
usually produces conflicting opinions, thus, generating
further uncertainty. Not to mention the anxiety that goes
along with it tends to prevent a relaxed and meaningful
investigation. And since there are no clear answers,
perhaps it is better to stick to more realistic and
manageable questions like What do I want to do with
my life? or What is my lifes purpose?
To others, not only do they see these questions as
simply a waste of time, but even consider them as being
completely unnecessary. This might be due to their
ignorance or maybe because they are just so busy with
their life, either in surviving it or in enjoying it, for which
they feel its not worth contemplating. That is why they
might sometimes view individuals who ask these types
of questions as odd or weird.
Perhaps, because of these situations, it led people to
not indulge in these difficult questions by simply
leaving them to scholars and thinkers to find the answers
for them. They later accept these philosophers findings
as reasonable and developed them into popular opinion.
Finding answers merely based on popular opinion on
something that is very significant without ever wanting
to investigate it for yourself is rather appalling, isnt it?
The irony is that these questions which eventually
fall into an exclusive domain of philosophers where they
are constantly debated, and have until today, been unable
to convincingly provide comprehensive answers that
could change the declining social, economic and political
state that is prevailing everywhere around the world.
Either way, we end up becoming ignorant about
these questions. We are forced to believe something that
is so fundamental in our lives without giving much
thought to it. We are like those children who are
'coerced into accepting something that is not actually
true when they ask tough and awkward questions about
life and nature. Thus, making what was initially difficult
to become more difficult than before. And with the
passage of time, it would eventually create additional
layers of difficulties where the task of discovering the
truth would be more laborious than before.
In the end, no matter what we do or what people say
(or dont), the questions shall always remain with us.
Due to the incompleteness of current existing
explanations, we continue to seek reasonable and logical
answers. This is because we are truth seekers. We go in
and out of unresolved issues over and over again during
our lifetime because we need to find answers and bring
about the truth, so that we will be able to put them to rest
and have closure, and with closure comes peace. Without
peace, we cant move on to the next level because these
questions will always linger in our minds; in our
conscious and subconscious minds. They are only
waiting to resurface again until the real truth prevails.
So the crucial questions still remain. It is quite
embarrassing to imagine living without ever knowing the
purpose and meaning of life. Especially to those who
never question them at all. Which, for me, is like going
somewhere and not knowing where it is that you are
going, not knowing what and why you are doing them.
Being lost in the journey of life without purpose and
without directions, is quite unimaginable and downright
eerie. We must therefore somehow strive to find it. After
all, it is our own life that we are living not someone else.
What I found from my own previous investigations
was that most of the answers to my questions seemed to
be scattered all over the place, in bits and pieces. What I
did was basically gather and compile all of them together
into a simple coherent answer which made sense of
everything I have been looking for.
This was accomplished, despite those who have a set
idea that you dont have to look for answers. Dont argue
and accept everything as it is, with no questions asked.
Well, that is not for me. For me, that is stupidity! We
should never be parrots who blindly utter and follow
without ever knowing or having a deep understanding of
why we do things. I guess it has to be my legal education
that substantially contributed to this state of mind of
questioning everything. God created us with beautiful
minds, to think, to reason and to rationalise and not
becoming like animals who might accept anything
blindly.
Regarding the ability to think, it is obvious that even
animals themselves know how to think as they are able
to differentiate between safety and danger, thus, right or
wrong. The quest is, therefore, about making your heart
be able to differentiate which is true and which is not.
Hence, you yourself must face it and find the answers for
yourself, as well as not being afraid of what people might
say. It is your life. Your fundamental liberty.
To those who believe in faith alone. Life is much
simpler for them. God bless you. Holding on to your faith
is a very powerful notion and is the most courageous
thing of being a human. I have to respect them. But
holding on to something just because of certain belief
might be pretty risky because you cant really determine
the truth merely based on faith. God ask believers to seek
Him in knowledge and understanding about Him and to
those, like me, who want more than just mere faith would
use the given gift of reasoning to try to make sense of it
all about your God that you subscribe to.
I do realise that there has been indeed numerous
preaching, sermons, books and literature that try to
convince me about many things that I need to know. And
yes, I do admit, they did manage to resolve some of the
lingering questions by giving rational answers to them,
but some as I have mentioned earlier, still persists. Those
which wont let you get away so easily. It may seem like
a curse but I took it as a good omen and as a challenge
that I must endure, as a show of faith towards God for
indulging in such thinking.
As I have mentioned earlier, I believe these issues
are indeed shared by many. A quest to find a universal
truth and perhaps the ultimate answer and solution for
mankind irrespective of who they are, what their beliefs
are, wherever they come from and from which period of
time. If you share the same thoughts as me then we are
on a similar stand. So in the coming topics, you might be
able to relate to my so called journey of reasoning.
I do hope that, eventually, I am able to make you
think more about yourselves, your life and of where you
are heading. After all, our life is ending sooner than we
think, whether we like it or not. We should not be
ignorant into thinking that we are able to live forever.
Today might just be our last. Dying without being able
to come to terms with some remaining issues is surely
not the way to go.
So in the topics below, I hope to share with everyone
what I believe and what I have discovered throughout my
journey. As the saying goes, sharing is caring; thus, I am
sharing them with you. This so-called discovery is a
way for everyone to bring some sense into the reality of
everyday life. Perhaps if you are eventually convinced,
you can share it with someone else and make them
ponder and rationalise for themselves. The key is to
provide sufficient knowledge so that they themselves can
develop a passion for finding the truth and not letting
anyone hinder them from it.
 I have kept my findings to later topics in order to
bring about a systematic introduction to my theory by
adopting a series of enquiries that I had undertaken to
discuss and probe for possible answers, which will
eventually lead to my final proposition, deliberations and
clarifications.
****
The law [is] written in their hearts, their conscience
also bearing witness

Romans 2:15
Who are we?
 Are we animals? Have we originated and developed
from other animals glorified apes? Or are we different
from them? Are we really as intelligent as we think we
are just because of our special qualities that is thought to
not be found in other animals? If so, then why does such
an advantage exist?
In answering these questions, we need to investigate
the nature of both humans and animals. It is time for us
to focus on the differences between humans and animals
and not just about similarities alone. By engaging into
discovering such dissimilarities, this will enable us to
gear up and move on to a higher level of purpose and
reasoning of our existence. David Premack, a
psychologist, concluded in his research that in all cases,
the similarities between animal and human abilities are
small, dissimilarities large. He further said that animal
intelligence and their behaviour are more focused
towards a single goal which is about getting food, as
compared to human intelligence which is focused on
various goals.
There is one major difference we have over animals:
intelligence. Human intelligence is just too complex to
be a result of natural processes as compared to animal
intelligence. Even though there might be those who
disagree with this, referring to studies carried out on
marine animals cognitive state, which they say are much
higher than ours, we could still generally say that human
cognition capabilities (which relates to conscious mental
activities that involve activities of thinking, learning,
understanding and remembering) are still very much
different from animals. E. L. Thorndike, for example,
had studied animal behaviour in the late 19th century and
from his careful observation, concluded that inference of
animal intelligence based on reasons, insight and
consciousness is unnecessary and misleading.
Furthermore, it is evidential enough that we humans
progress and develop while animals dont. We
somehow enable ourselves to improve, change and adapt
for the betterment of our lives. We even create laws to
regulate our conduct and behaviours. Sadly, despite our
best efforts, these laws do not entirely produce improved
results. For example, instead of having a sustainable
development environment, we are actually witnessing
the global destruction of the environment. Whose fault is
it? It is ours alone and never the animals. Chaos and
tyranny are prevailing everywhere which are the causes
of continued destruction to the earth by the activities of
mankind. One doesnt have to go any further to identify
this statement as true. We are actually witnessing an
ongoing crime against nature and humanity. Polluters are
far from being environmentalists. Great numbers of them
are ignorant as compared to those who are with moral
consciousness. However, despite all that, we cant deny
that the progress of development is actually founded on
our ability as mankind to use our knowledge to enhance
and progress, which is unlike animals.
Since we are on the issue of human chaos and
tyranny, these behaviours exist because most of the
ingrained goodness within us is now missing. We are, by
nature, born with a good conscience but by being
constantly subjected to negative influences, it will result
in horrible outcomes. Therefore, human emotions
(unlike animals) must be nurtured. We have to work
rigorously in order to develop our conscience to attain
positive outcomes. We must constantly strive to make
the world a better place because the big difference
between us and animals is our rational thinking. How do
we do this? By education. We enhance ourselves with
the knowledge to improve our ability to live. This is done
through the education system that exists throughout the
world and for that very fact, we are different from
animals. Seen any chimpanzees going to schools lately?
There are those who refuse to let go about us being
animals, where they like to argue that we are by nature,
animals; asking us to look at the similarities of our build
(physique) between animals and humans. Well, I have no
problem with agreeing with that statement. Yes, we do
resemble animals in many ways, both physically and
mentally. They walk using their feet and behave and
socialise like us, but that does not mean that these
similarities can equate us and make us into animals. Do
they? And yes, I do agree that animals establish complex
communities and they also have the ability to
communicate with each other, in one form or another.
However, in contrast, we humans have developed more
complex languages for communication purposes. Not
only that, these complex communication skills have
given us the ability to advance in our civilisation by
creating and developing new technologies, unlike
animals. In existence, did any animal create a satellite for
communications equipment recently?
We humans are indeed different from animals
because of our selfish and self-centred positions. Unlike
animals, human selfishness is the one that clearly
differentiates us from them in our behaviour. It is
because animals do not have selfishness in them. On the
other hand, altruism (goodness or selflessness) are
positive qualities that is becoming rare in our society
today; the acting out of concern for others rather than
ourselves. Animals continuous unchanged altruistic
position goes far beyond humans; to the extent of putting
their lives constantly at risks, directly or indirectly in
danger, for the sole interest of others. Open YouTube to
see some examples of the altruistic nature of animals.
Can we humans maintain constant altruistic positions
every day which benefits everyone else?
Again, one can argue that there are some animals
that portray selfishness in their characteristics such as the
black widow spider (Latrodectus) which kills and eats its
male mates. Ask this for what purpose? Is it for
survival, mere fun or even exploitation like we humans
do? In 2012, a paper in the ScienceDirect by Klaas W.
Welke from Hamburg University, Germany, entitled
Sexual cannibalism benefits offspring survival
indicated that the evidence was of the survival of the
black widows offspring and not a sadistic nature which
many are assuming. According to him, this may indicate
a paternal investment for their own offspring where the
male spiders provide females with nutrients by
prolonging the sexual act and, thus, increasing the
probability of their offsprings survival. If this is true,
then this would be the greatest altruistic act.
We, unlike animals, are the only being that exploits
everything which surrounds us, not only for survival, but
for our own selfish ulterior purposes. Look at how we
manipulate workers into doing things in an inhumane
and unjust manner. Horrible working conditions with
unreasonable hours are rampant among employers to
capitalise on. If not because of the protection of the law,
such freedom of contract propounded by Adam Smith
could end us up in a continued state of oppression by the
stronger party. Look at all the human exploitation against
those who are poor, unfortunate, underprivileged,
vulnerable, defenceless and powerless humans, like
those who were intentionally forced into the sex trade
and human slavery. Is this situation not flourishing
throughout the world? Are we delighted to say that we
are similar to animals? Animals dont have such
characteristics. These characteristics are undeniably
unique to us humans.
Moving on further, let us look at what was
discovered about animal builders such as the beaver,
who are the ecosystems engineers with outstanding
engineering projects when stating our differences from
animals. First, lets look at the what position. We all
know what beavers do, they create dams. They are very
meticulous in their work which equals our master
builders with their precise calculations, while having to
undergo tedious procedures to complete their highly
complexly-designed dams. We humans are also builders
where we build dams as well. We witness huge and
majestic dams being built throughout the history of
mankind and these dams just keep on getting bigger all
the time. In this respect, as builders, we are similar.
But let us look at the reasons why beavers go to such
extent in creating their significant dams. This is what
makes them different from us humans. Beavers are
animals that create dams solely for the purpose of
survival. We could say that we humans are also acting
out on the same principle, but we have selfishness in us
that beavers dont. We progressed from simple dams to
gigantic ones under the label of needs which are actually
for pleasures. Pleasures that need satisfaction which are
practically endless. We want more, bigger dams to help
quench our hunger that keeps on growing, our
unstoppable needs even go to the extent of witnessing
conflicts against other land owners, communities, states
and even countries on the issue of building our own dams
and not taking into account the equal sharing of the same
water source; intentionally denying the downstream
parties of their rights to provide for their own needs. We
dont see this selfishness in beavers, do we?
The above example can be generalised to all other
animal builders because they have maintained a unique
design for thousands of years while we humans, we
innovate, improve, enhance and make them bigger and
better and they keep getting bigger. We know how big
means; more space, more resources and bigger side
effects, usually negative. If we are like animals, then why
had they not progressed like us? Why do beavers not
expand their dam sizes like us? Are we to still say that
we are similar to them?
Furthermore, animals dont kill for fun or over kill
for their need to survive. We humans kill for fun and
leave good resources to waste, almost all the time. The
United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP)
estimated that over 1.3 billion tonnes of food produce for
human consumption are wasted each year and consumers
in rich countries waste around 222 million tonnes of food
every year. Animals take only what they need for
survival but we humans take what we want in fulfilling
our own endless desires. We kill calves (in full cruelty)
just to ensure we would get the quantity of milk for mass
production and profit. Compare this with animals.
Altruism (selfless concern for the well-being of
others), is indeed different from loyalty because loyalty
normally relates to some kind of social relationship
basis, whereas altruism does not. We have seen animals
go to the extent of risking their lives for the sake of
others, irrespective of whether they are related or not. A
recent article published by scientists at Kwansei Gakuin
University suggested that a rat will choose friendship
over food to save a fellow mate in distress. We have
heard or read stories and might see clips on YouTube of
animals helping other animals of different species, which
literally puts us humans to shame.
The nature of altruism is also different from egoism,
which is a part of human self-interest and self-
centredness. Animals do indeed have self-interest in
them but mainly for survival and lineage protection.
Scientists are still puzzled about altruism in animals. I
guess this is because animals are not egoistic; but we
humans are egoistical beings which makes us somewhat
different from animals.
Another variation is the condition, whereby, animals
cant take care of themselves as humans do. They are not
built for such purpose, making them different from us.
Scientists who conducted studies on animal intelligence
had found that it is not possible to train them to think.
Even getting animals to get food by using thought
processes resulted in limited success. Animals are truly
helpless without our intervention. Imagine whenever we
fall sick, we can seek a doctors help but can the animals
do the same? Think.
One could say animals do possess certain medicinal
knowledge on self-healing. Like chimpanzees, bonobos
and gorillas, they eat certain types of leaves to help them
with intestinal worms. I even saw my cat Blue eat new
fresh grass for, what I suspect to be, the same reason.
Animals will seek a remedy in their environment to
medicate and cure themselves. Indeed, this perhaps is
true. But my concern is about situations where they are
helpless to even help themselves like in catastrophes
such as protection against natural disasters, pandemics,
plagues and contagious sickness. In 2015 in central
Kazakhstan, an entire herd of over 120,000 Saiga
antelopes had died within two or three weeks, which is
utterly shocking. Can they help themselves? Who do you
think is better equipped to logically step up for them by
finding some kind of remedy to counter, solve and
discover solutions to avoid similar situations in the
future? Can they do that? Can we? Yes, surely we are
built for that; thus, making us again different from them.
If you think about it, all things have their own unique
and specific functions as advantages over others. God
certainly did not create anything without its purpose.
Anything and everything has its purpose. It is not
because of natural accidents that we are here. We were
created because of our ability to use rational thinking,
unlike animals, since we dont share all their
characteristics. We dont have random sexual
intercourse with everyone. Incest, for example, is
medically known to have a negative effect upon the
human genetic makeup. If we were to do such a
behaviour, then what a degrading status we would
occupy. Doing things similar to animals, in truth, is not
acceptable. Thus, our mental capabilities are what makes
us different from animals.
Ever since the discovery of the DNA by James
Watson and Francis Crick, the genetic structure that is
located deep inside our nucleus cells has a profound
negative implication on the notion that our existence is
the result of random mutation and natural selection of the
evolutionary process. Science had proven that DNA
codes of some 3 billion genetic letters of genetic
language are irreplaceable and unique; contained in a
mere two millionths of a millimetre thickness. DNA,
according to Stephen C. Meyer, are mathematically
identical to the information in a written language or
computer code, making it a result of intelligent design
rather than mere chance. That is because language is
information that could only be formulated by intelligent
means. The closest DNA makeup to humans are those of
chimpanzees with a 98% match, making us similar but
distinctly different. From that 2% difference, one can see
such great differences in every human character and
behaviour. Albert Einstein, Beethoven and Picasso are
some notable and evidential examples which
differentiate us from animals.
Surely, if we dont want to use our thinking faculty
and utilise them for our advantage, then what a waste that
would be! If that is the position that we want to occupy,
by saying that we are merely animals, then we certainly
have failed to position ourselves to change the world to
a better one. Many of us just dont want to improve
ourselves and so become mere followers. We behave like
animals that can be easily manipulated and cannot
rationalise into sensible and rational beings to improve
ourselves. Failure to realise this would create a condition
that would invite definite disaster. We will never be able
to save the earth, but judging from our current activities,
we might end up destroying it and, in the process,
ourselves as well.
Whatever it is, we humans must realise that our
status is superior to animals, or if you like, different from
animals. With that, we could therefore make an inference
that these features of differences are evidence of an
intelligent design. Nonetheless, what we must face now
is no longer about who, but about why we were created
and are apparently different? Surely it must be bigger
than that. And if we accept that we are not animals, then
the logical and rational answer should be about using our
intelligence to think of the reasons for being different.
This, in itself, relates to the question of for what purpose
were we designed for?
One obvious purpose that I could think of would be
that we humans are able to use our superiority to
sustain and maintain this earth and everything in it
(plants and animals) so they could all flourish; and this,
in return, ensures our own continued existence. This
mandate was bestowed upon us because we are the only
beings on earth that can make such a change. It is by
default that we are to be the guardians of the world
because every single other being is utterly helpless
without our help. We are the caretakers of the world.
But by ensuring continuity of survival alone does not
really appear to convincingly be the grand purpose
because it do not actually remove us completely from the
equation of being animals ourselves to eat, survive and
reproduce. Hence, logically, there must be a higher
purpose for our existence other than the status of
caretaker.
Therefore, the initial question about who we are
should be answered in a positive way where we are
indeed different from all animals but certainly with a
special purpose for which we have to further investigate.

****
 [He] who created death and life to test you [as to]
which of you is best in deed and He is the Exalted in
Might, the Forgiving.

Al Quran 67:2
Why are we here?
 By being different from animals, the first priority for
us in determining the reasons why we are here in this
world is to establish whether we are able to differentiate
the things that can fall into a category of either right or
wrong by using our rational thinking. And since we are
in the age where scientific research rules, can science be
the answer to our determination?
Since science, by definition, is knowledge, we
have to determine the method of investigation by first
choosing the correct method of knowledge. Philosophy
is the study that goes where hard science can't or won't;
giving philosophers the necessary license to speculate
about everything from metaphysics to morality. Pure
Science, therefore, could never be able to determine what
is right or wrong because it doesnt deal with
metaphysical things that are not scientifically
discoverable; especially when it is based on a subjective
interpretation as compared to a measurable evidence
based on specific principles of reasoning. Well, it is not
sciences fault as these questions do not fit in its faculty.
Thus, it has to be the realms of philosophy that should
take up the task of providing solutions to all mankind.
Recalling the story of seven blind men and an
elephant where each person described differently what
they physically felt about the elephant, various
interpretations will also occur based on the multitude of
perspectives, which means that all of them are basically
accurate but not so precise; i.e. indicating that what they
are describing is an elephant. Thus, a single faculty of
thinking could not be the only source of truth. That
would not be fair for someone to even think that. It must
be by using a combination of ideas in order to obtain a
comprehensive result. Looking from a distance, one can
only get a proper and larger perspective. Hard science
does not need to be rejected, but rather included in the
investigations, to assist us in finding the answers to some
of the questions that we are looking for; but
unfortunately, not for all the questions. A sad reality, but
it is a fact.
As for the many philosophical perspectives existing,
there is always a danger whenever one particular thought
is to be adopted as the only source of truth, since it will
also have a deceiving effect. We have seen various
philosophical concepts like communism, capitalism,
socialism and others as being the foundation of a country
but resulting in injustice. For example, the philosophy of
determinism believes humans are excluded from free
will, consciousness and rationality because we are just
biochemical robots that merely act based on our natural
character, and cannot be held morally responsible for our
actions. Everything that happens is ordained by nature.
Killing is killing because it is our nature to kill.
If determinism is to be the way of finding truth and
be used as the basis of government by any ruling body,
then it would bring total anarchy of the highest degree;
one of which I believe Adolf Hitler would have surely
welcomed. It would then justify his killing of millions of
people during the Second World War. The same goes for
any government that uses this as their justification in
committing crimes. This is an absurd way of thinking
which does not fall on the fact that we are capable,
rational and conscious beings.
Taking a more generalised approach to include theist
would be better to correctly determine the concept of
right and wrong, which is the concept that exists almost
all over the world. It is basically about having a union
with God, understanding what He says about justice,
good or evil, right or wrong and to follow each one
truthfully. Because He is the one who created us, so He
must therefore know what is best for us, either good or
evil, or between right and wrong. If we were to clearly
understand what the criteria are, then it would make
sense regarding what God wants us to achieve and
ultimately, gain His blessings. By doing this, it would
bring the investigation closer to the questions we seek
answers to, with a realistic outcome and not
philosophical ideas alone.
I believe that through our religious teachings and our
moral education, it makes us realise that the reason we
are here is far more than just caretakers of the world. It
must be more than loving fellow humans and merely
taking care of the environment and all the animals on
earth. I know that there are numerous debates and
opinions about the issue of why we are here on this earth;
however, I do not want to delve into those interpretations
but instead move on to present my approach on
observing the question. I believe that there is an answer
which can be found that would eventually satisfy all of
us, rather than lingering on a topic of numerous
interpretations. We need to proceed to discover it in
order to move forward to find the ultimate truth
regarding our existence in this world.
Two years ago, in 2014, a scientist at Oxford
University found a region of our brain that would tell us
(irrespective of whether we like it or not) about things
that we do; either right or wrong. While another
researcher, Professor Paul Bloom at the Infant Cognition
Centre at Yale University, found that babies know right
from wrong even at the age of six months. This is also
the findings of Daniel J. Povinelli and Steve Giambrone
in which they said there is some reason to suspect that
the theory of mind is unique to our species, thereby
contradicting the theories of Sigmund Freud and others
which say that human beings existence is as amoral
animals, that we are born having no moral standards,
restraints or principles; unaware of, or indifferent to,
questions of right or wrong. Our mind is constantly
reminding ourselves of what is right and wrong; i.e.
constantly seeking truth. But then again, what is truth?
Since right and wrong is an inborn inclination of
mankind of swaying to good rather than evil, then the
proper representation in a larger context within our
society would correspond to what we call justice.
Whoever is seeking justice is actually seeking what is
right from wrong; i.e. the truth. Justice is when truth is
determined based on facts and not on any mere
propositions. Whenever justice is achieved, truth shall
prevail. It is one of the universal fundamental element
that we all embrace throughout time and space. It is an
undeniable fact that each one of us seek justice, the very
concept of justice naturally exists within us whether we
like it or not.
Looking at the historical perspective, our whole
human existence evolves and develops around justice.
We go to wars and kill one another for justice or fight on
behalf of those who say that they are seeking justice.
Justice gives us a sense of purpose for living as it brings
closure to our hearts. Without justice, this world would
be an evil place because it would then be full of tyranny
and oppressions, where only those who are able to secure
power would use them to rule others and gain advantages
and benefits from all crimes and abuses committed.
Justice is what makes us alive, makes us end wars, end
oppressions and, at the same time, tells us when to stop.
This is because the very consciousness that we possess
comes from our rational able mind to know what is right
or wrong.
But then again, this so-called justice is justified
maybe because it is based merely on our own
formulation of justifications, which in itself could be true
or false. This issue must, therefore, be addressed.
However, if one would want to venture into the various
philosophical interpretations about the meaning of
justice then there would be the never-ending arguments
regarding the nature of justice itself. Therefore, again, to
avoid such a dilemma, I would like to stick to the
ordinary meaning from the legal perspective, in which
justice is when parties are treated fairly by the law;
whenever facts are proven as true and real, it establishes
both right and wrong and this results in delivering justice
to those who seek it.
This perspective is in agreement with the
Correspondence Theory that says truth is about being
able to correspond propositions to things that are actually
true based on real facts. If the proposition that justice is
a common fundamental need for all humans, then it is a
fact that we all seek justice, otherwise, there would never
be the establishment of laws through the legislative
process and the judiciary system for justice seekers in
every country in the world. Therefore, seeking justice
and securing it would be one of the most basic form of
guaranteeing our existence in this world. Without justice,
we are indeed like animals and destruction is very much
close at hand due to our destructive nature.
Thus, our existence in this world is for purposes not
only useful, meaningful and important but to serve
something higher and eternal, a noble and honourable
cause. Only when we achieve that would we find true
happiness in this world, and definitely in the hereafter.
It is time for us to face the fact that we are not here
to simply evolve by eating to survive and reproduce. We
were never like animals, and we never will be. If you
agree with the evolutionists who say that we are from
animals and had evolved just for the sake of survival,
then stay as an animal by not doing anything but
enjoying the joys and pains the earth will give you. But
by being a sane person, our mind would surely reject
such an idea. We even saw evidence from previous
societies that had disintegrated and were destroyed
because of a failure in ethics and morality, when they
themselves behaved like animals. Always killing and
destroying one another. There must be a universal justice
that prevails over everyone because if we believe in
justice, and if it is real, then surely there is a way for all
of us to acquire it. The question is how?
The question of how must therefore, be explored
because truth (as mentioned earlier) has various
interpretations by many people. Mine, as I have mention
above, is through justice. Therefore, if we are to
extensively discuss what truth is, then I believe we would
not be able to move forward into how to achieve truth.
What we need to do is to go a few steps back by looking
at how universal truth could be determined and, in my
case, how to achieve justice so that the ultimate truth
shall prevail. It must also be something that everyone can
further make sense of on why they are supposed to
achieve such justice.
 Interpretation b

Interpretation a Interpretation c

Justice What is
How to achieve
universal
universal truth?
truth?

Interpretation f
Interpretation d

Interpretation e

In investigating why, if justice is truly fundamental

to mankinds well-being, then it is obvious that it must
be made available for everyone to find, thus, it must
surely exist for us to systematically discover it and what
better way to investigate by using the observational
method in philosophy; empiricism. Empiricism is an
accepted technique that makes logical sense whenever
adopting such a method could result in determining true
justice. What better method than to use a benchmark in
the form of tests while doing these observations? This
method is rigorously applied by the court system all over
the world because a test is best known for tackling the
issue of how to determine something that is not certain.
There are hundreds of tests applied by judges in order to
determine right and wrong of a fact produced before
them. It is a general repeatable process that could bring
about certainty and reliability of the outcome.
One might argue that our existence is basically for
various purposes, therefore, our path in achieving the
purpose would surely be different. I humbly disagree. By
adopting a common test, this could easily remove such
differences, further streamlining the purpose towards a
universal truth. Likewise, when we undergo a test or
exam in the education system, it is to enable us to move
on to a higher level of tertiary education. Tests or exams
are formulated to eliminate all differences of opinions on
what would be the best way to get there. It is a common
method for us to determine the outcome by using a
standard set of questions, and the results from such a test
would then be made known to all who took it as a
reflection of their performance during the test. Its like
anyone who wishes to become a qualified doctor cannot
simply be allowed to be one unless he or she have proven
that they are indeed qualified by virtue of standard exams
and certified only for such a purpose.
The same goes for us. In order to determine what is
right and wrong, we must undertake the test and by using
a standard benchmarking evaluation, it will enable us to
know whether we have achieved true justice or not. Only
by undertaking it will one discover the true meaning of
why he or she is here in this world.
But can this method be applied to everyone else? Is
it safe to acknowledge that all of us in some way or
another, are the same? I guess so, because of a simple
basic fact that we are all human beings. We are basically
the same. No matter how complex our lives have
become, we still share common values and system of
thinking which is uniquely ours even though our names,
identities, backgrounds, physical makeup and
behaviours are different. We are, thus, interconnected to
one another.
This interconnectivity makes us the same. By being
humans, we adopt the practise of living together with the
mode of sharing customs, traditions and culture when
forming communities and societies. Subsequently, we
become socially connected mainly due to our own choice
of staying connected to each other for either convenience
or self-created necessity. As a result, no one can stay
alone anymore without being connected to someone else
somewhere. This is especially true in todays digital
world where we are so accustomed to connections with
one another. We have become the communal beings that
live in societies as one unit. One global community.
This union we share is also based on cause and effect
that constantly occurs all around us. Living in a society
makeup results in a division of labour for productivity
and economic purposes. Therefore, we end up having
connections with each other for our economic needs
from past experiences. For this, I have to agree with
David Hume when he argued that cause and effect are
basically built on customs rather than reasons that affect
the human minds. And if we were to look at our global
state of affairs today, it is basically founded on our needs
to live interconnected lives, which is based on customs.
Our future is based on our past experiences. This thesis
alone will not lead us to any deeper understanding of
what causation is; subsequently, it will be quite difficult
for us to find a general causation that would lead us to
resolve the current problems we are facing throughout
the world.
Another common association is about how we are
connected to each other in a spiritual concept. As
humans, we are (by nature) caring towards other human
beings. By looking at how we face death, one might
conclude that since we are to face death alone, then we
are exempted from having connections with others;
irrespective of those who live in or out of the society in
which we live. In reality, however, when we die, we will
still be somehow connected with other humans, directly
or indirectly. Take an extreme example of dying alone
on a marooned island. Even though there is a low chance
of being connected with other humans, sooner or later
there will be a connection when the body is found.
Questions will be raised concerning who, how, what and
where in regards to the deceased; especially on why he
was marooned on the island to begin with?
We need to realise that whatever we do will impact
someone or share a connection with something else,
irrespective of time and space. People do bad things
thinking that their behaviour will only affect themselves
and it is none of the other persons business to mess
around with his rights. How wrong and naive they are.
One can argue that taking your own life by self-killing
might be ones basic fundamental right because it does
not affect others during the act of killing. Yet, to the
loved one, it will be an emotional status, and the society,
whether directly or indirectly, will be affected by your
act. Dr Peter Saunders, writer of the book Twelve
Reasons... Why Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalised
stated that the act of killing oneself (euthanasia) has a
negative cause and effect on doctors, family, economy
and society as a whole; thus, it is considered as an illegal
act to most parts of the world. Surely this act reflects the
ignorant thinking of the actor by denying the impact it
will have upon others that their action stands alone and
does not connect with anyone else.
We should be able to come to terms with it and not
be so ignorant towards this fact that, what we do with our
rational mind, which at first seems to be simple enough,
always has a larger impact. What we do does have
various interconnections that affect others, whether we
like it or not. Once we are able to realise that, then we
may stand a chance to subsequently change our lives,
other peoples lives, our environment and our dear earth.
This sense of consciousness is not very difficult for
anyone to achieve if one is able to comprehend that we
are indeed one civilisation, and that what we do will
effect and affect others.
In Plato's Republic, the definition of justice is more
of an individualistic nature of a man rather than an
interrelationship with others. It basically starts with the
individual and subsequently have the interconnectivity
effect with the rest of mankind. He who positions himself
as a just man in every act in whatever he does,
wherever he is, must be able to do his best and give
precise equivalent of what he has received. This
approach of Plato applies to both the individual level and
the universal level, reflecting the person's soul: reason,
spirit and desire. If a person is just at the individual level,
then every individuals will eventually be just at the
universal level.
Justice being at the centre of everyone is obviously
interconnected because justice would involve two or
more interrelationships of interconnectivity of events. It
came from disputes to finding truth over any conflict or
arguments. Law is used to determine justice through the
formulation of tests by applying methods of evaluation
as logical analysis towards resolving legal issues, thus,
maintaining the credibility of the courts decisions as
peoples lives and futures depend on the correct and right
decisions. Even at the international level, the
International Court of Justice uses the same formulation
of tests to solve international disputes.
The application of tests for the purpose of universal
truth of justice is indeed having universal connectivity
and is not for selected individuals, everyone must
undergo this test whether they like it or not, irrespective
of whether they are ready or not because our every action
would be interconnected and related with one another;
therefore, the test is also interconnected. This universal
moral test would be common for everyone everywhere.
Even though the outcome of the test we are taking is
rather individualistic in nature (ours alone), undergoing
such a test is communal (similar to death) where we die
alone but death comes to everyone and everything living.
It is universal.
Therefore, understanding this universal moral test is
supposed to be simple and not complicated. Otherwise,
how can it be a universal moral test if it is difficult? God
did not create us to be vain in finding out the ultimate
truth. If so, then He is cruel and that would be against
His very nature. He is the Greatest, Most Loving and
Most Powerful. It must be a logical and rational answer
so that every one of us can be able to rationalise it. One
that we can equally share together. Irrespective of
whether we believe in God or not. There is no need for
any one of us to have a university degree in order to
know it; it is not meant for a privileged few. It must,
however, be modest and universal enough to be
susceptible to everyone and everywhere in the world.
Moreover, it should be an open book test where the
question is already laid out. Finding a universal moral
truth should connect all of us, and be the basis of our
universal values that would bond each and every one of
us.
Our connectivity means that the universal truth must
be real because how can something be different for
everyone yet have a common value towards all? The
answer should lie within ourselves because we are
rational beings. Being people who accept the world as it
literally is, Realists, talk about moral realism which
concerns the existence of moral facts and moral values,
something that is real, in existence for everyone and
universally applied. Reality is, therefore, objective and
independent of our views about it, that it is separate from
our beliefs, feelings or any kind of attitudes we have
towards it.
This reality state for everyone is where the universal
moral test should be represented as a "truth-apt"
statement where the objectivity of being true or false can
be determined. It will describe the true state of the real
world where ordinary rules of logic can be directly
applied to moral statements. And if there are conflicts
between two moral beliefs, there would be only one
common solution to both.

Universal Arrogance Universal

Test
Justice
Theory Truth

In summary, in order to find the ultimate truth, we

would have to adopt a universal test which is common to
every one of us. This common universal test will resolve
universal moral conflicts which might also explain how
conflicts arose in the first place. I believe that this
universal moral test is material and evident and can be
approached using a more scientific method rather than a
philosophical one. All we need to do now is to find the
criteria of this universal moral test.

****
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they
be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him
Colossians 1:16
What is the meaning of life?
 In discovering this universal moral test, we must first
realise the fact that we, as humans, have meaning to our
lives, irrespective of who we are, no matter what our
opinion towards life may be. Life cannot be taken for
granted. Yes, all of us have to undergo tribulations in life
and, sometimes, without knowing what they mean.
Maybe its because of our own ignorance or were too
struck by living that we are unable to comprehend what
is really going on. Maybe there are more important
things on our minds.
I always wonder about the meaning of life. For me,
it goes back way into my teen years. I am constantly
thinking of life, asking questions which my friends so
very often discouraged me from pursuing since they saw
it as a waste of time. They would say that there is no
answer so why bother? Not only that, it was also said to
be a forbidden subject, thus, I needed to stay away from
it. Satan, they say, will sway one who starts questioning
and would drive him into darkness. But not questioning
things is actually darkness itself.
Surely, if we were to believe in such darkness as
reality then we are indeed like those in the Allegory of
the Cave which Plato talked about, where we are chained
to a wall located deep inside a dark cave throughout our
lives, facing a blank wall. The only reality is of shadows
being projected onto that wall by those who make them
at the mouth of the cave. Eventually we end up giving
these shadows meaning and taking them as reality. A
fictitious reality where we will continue to be imprisoned
both physically and mentally. Except for those who
manage to break away and find that the images were
never real but mere shadows of the true reality.
Sometimes, evil can also be in the form of the fellow
humans making those shadows because of arrogance,
self-interest and material gains that they obtain simply
by discouraging others to ponder and discover for
themselves the truth. Nevertheless, I silently refuse to
abide because I know that God is Great and through His
greatest creation; the human mind, I could definitely be
able to find the answers I am looking for as long as my
mind is fixed on finding the truth. So, as long as your
intention is sincere, you will be fine.
Later in life, by teaching law, it brought me directly
face-to-face with human moral evils. One cannot learn
law without being undisturbed by the cruelty of people
and the crimes they commit. Crimes that are committed
towards others which do not make sense at all. Only
animals could do such a thing, but on second thought,
even they, the animals, wouldnt do that. For example,
how could a son explode his own parents and kill them
for money to buy drugs? Killing, raping and robbing
others for just plain pleasure. Look at all the news in the
media. It makes you want to throw-up. All these
challenges make me more determined to discover the
answer.
 behave purpose

Animal Altruistic Survival

There must surely be something meaningful and

significant to life. Otherwise, everything does not make
sense. Life could not be useless, unlike those who
believe that we are just mere animals living our lives
naturally. Compare our life to those of ants, even though
we see insects like them as useless, they indeed have
purpose to their lives. They have one of the highest level
of organisation of animal sociality where eusociality and
altruism coexist. Ants have the highest level of
organisation in their social characteristics like being
cooperative and caring for their offspring, or their
offspring are caring to others. They defend and protect
each other for the goodness of their group. Thus, their
lives have meaning because they have a purpose in life.
 I guess that would make sense in regards to ensuring
the greatest happiness of the overall population (greatest
happiness principle promoted by Jeremy Bentham). If
they died trying to achieve their purpose, their lives are
meaningful. But surely ours is not the same. Utilitarian
could be imposed upon society who are obedient, like
altruistic animals, but never humans because we are
different.
We do not do things for others happiness, but
merely for our own. I was taught by my philosophy
lecturer, Professor Darby, that we are selfish people
where we do things for our own sake. I guess there is
nothing wrong with merely making a conclusion of what
we really are. We are simply more concerned about our
own interests first rather than others. This attitude is
more towards what kind of benefit it would bring us.
With selfishness we are able to individually progress
because we care about our future and well-being more
than others. Is it wrong? Selfishness gives us a sense of
direction on the purpose of why and what we want to
achieve. With it, we initiate action by formulating plans
and strategies. A football team enters the tournament to
win, I dont know any team that enters a tournament just
for fun. That is, their main aim or prime purpose is a
selfish attitude. One definitely cannot behave in an
altruistic way in a tournament. Do they? Do they share
their strategies or even their weaknesses to the opposite
team? Thats ridiculous. So the team has the purpose to
win because they want the benefits that come with
winning such as status, glamour, money, sponsorships,
etc.
Selfishness, however, is not necessarily without
negative influences which might be transformed into an
ethical problem. For example, whenever you somehow
have an advantage over the other you use it unethically
to stay ahead or supress the one next to you. That is
ethically wrong. Any reasonable man would be able to
reach such a conclusion. If its in the football team, as
the above example, if an unjust situation occurs within
the game then the team would ensure that such an
injustice would be eliminated by informing the other
team, failing which they are arrogant. Say, for example,
the team that somehow knows about the referee who
forgot to wear his contact lenses should not use such
information to their advantage, which is not only selfish
but arrogant.
I agree to some extent with Ayn Rand in her book,
The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism,
when asked why she placed such virtuous qualities to a
word that, for many, means something else? She
responded by saying For the reason that makes you
afraid of it. We are not to be afraid of selfishness when
someone brings out certain different perspectives about
it. Lets face the fact that selfishness is indeed a human
characteristic, and ours alone. All created things have
different attributes attached to them, both good and bad.
With selfishness, others can actually receive benefits or
positive side effects; for example, scientists basically
conduct their research due to their selfish attitude since
they dont believe in what others are stating and they
dont care about the feelings of others, as to whether their
actions offend others or not. Nevertheless, because of
their selfish attitudes, we do obtain new knowledge that
enhances our daily lives. Same as the football team
example above, they do in the end get the perks that they
had wanted. Thus, our selfish attitude is naturally
imbedded in us, creating our character as humans which
we cant deny or ignore. We must be able to
acknowledge its functions, both positive and negative,
and be cautious about the negative acts that selfishness
can make us do, which can be both immoral and criminal
acts.

purpose

Altruistic

behave purpose

Human Selfish Benefits

Arrogant
purpose
 Our selfishness allows us to apply certain
perceptions. For example, whenever we look at pests, we
might see that their survival efforts are nothing compared
to the survival efforts of our own. Thats why we can
easily kill them, and sometimes, not even think about
their lives when directing the killing.
Furthermore our selfishness can also clouded us of
their indirect purpose which could benefit us. I hate
mosquitoes because they cause me to suffer dengue fever
three times in my entire life. But without dengue fever,
or sickness of any kind, hospitals and pharmacies would
not exist because sickness makes them rich, since
companies like them actually nowadays exist for profits
not charity (another selfish example). We also have to
learn to take precaution by increasing our surrounding
cleanliness and not allow them to breed (selfish). Not to
mention the medical research that goes into eliminating
and finding cure are flourish (selfish). Therefore, we
cannot ignore that even the smallest insignificant insect
can indirectly bring about the selfish features of
ourselves.
Our selfishness can sometimes dictate us on how we
see the world like our lives must be more meaningful
than others or animals and plants existing surrounding
us. Because of our superiority thus gives us greater
purpose than them. As a result, everything that happens
is basically things that happen with a purpose which
originates from a cause, one of which is our selfishness.
Why cant we act like those ants that have meaning in
their lives? Sacrificing ourselves for the sake of others
without humanistic rationality? We cannot be like
communists who believe in communalities of equalities
because even though we might be created the same, but
surely, we are not exactly equal in everything and
moreover our selfishness would not allow us to be
communal.
Everyone wants to say that their lives are better than
others simply due to their social status that they occupy.
If I were to say that my life has more meaning than yours,
would you agree? Is it reasonable, rational and logical
thinking? Because this is what we are today. We give
interpretations on what is meaningful and what is
meaningless. Are beggars lives meaningless compared
to those of rich people? Are Kings lives more
meaningful than their subjects? Do thinkers deserve a
more meaningful life than non-thinkers? Do you, as a
reader of this book, deserve a more meaningful life
compared to those who wouldnt care less of the reasons
and purpose of our existence? How about scientists over
non-scientists? Just because they contribute more to
human development than those who dont, does that
mean their lives are more meaningful than others,
making scientist more deserving towards life than
others. Could it be that later in the future, it will be
determined whether one should live or be put to death
purely on the basis of whether ones life is more
meaningful; therefore, they should live while others
shouldnt? Can those substandard populations could then
be used for scientific testing for benefitting mankind, or
for a global population reduction plan?
That would be ridiculous and biased, which goes
against all human standards, but that is what we
subscribe to today. It is racism of the highest degree.
Indeed, we may be different in physique, mind and
status, but our meaning in life is the same. Just because
a person is stupid, infant, poor, uneducated or suffering
from disease, that does not mean that their lives are
meaningless. Likewise, a persons life is meaningful to
himself, irrespective of whether he or she realises it or
not. Otherwise, we wouldnt create public laws that
protect these people against oppression of others and
from themselves (law on suicide). Law acknowledges
that we all share meaning in our lives. With meaning
shall emanate a sense of worth and purpose. As a result,
our individual rights are formed.
With self-worth, we humans judge whether one
deserves to live or die; irrespective of who we are within
the social status. We decide how criminals are not
worthy of their freedom and rights due to the crimes they
commit. This is because of the crimes committed against
others. For example, one who murders another without
lawful justification, the retributive justice would be the
equivalent sentence (in some societies, mandatory
death). We instil such punishment for these offences
because as a society, we generally classify unacceptable
behaviours since these non-conforming behaviours tend
to disrupt the very framework of our society. No matter
which level of society that they come from, self-worth is
extremely important.
It is under the label of individual rights that people
sometimes decide for themselves whenever they want to
commit suicide or seek help to end it where they pursue
their own self-destruction (euthanasia). This trait is in
both wealthy and poor individuals who commit self-
destruction whenever they dont feel the happiness of
life. They are indeed selfish, thinking about themselves.
If they do get killed without anyone knowing then maybe
it will end there, but somehow it does not. Their death
will invoke other things to occur. Like the police who are
to investigate, the legal issues of property distributions,
insurance, mortuary and many things related to the
process of death. So here we see a selfish person who is
also arrogant. Wealthy people do certain acts like taking
drugs, alcoholism, sexual extremism and gambling with
full acknowledgement that it would bring about their
own eventual destruction; physically and mentally. But
does that mean they are able to commit self-destruction
without nothing else ever taking place?
In conclusion, the meaning of life would depend
heavily on the ability to make sense of our purpose in
life. If we are to utilise our fundamental rights as
individuals and our everlasting selfish attitudes, then
what better way to go through this test by using these
qualities for our own benefit. It is our nature to want to
excel in everything, especially when it comes to tests that
we wish to not only pass but to outshine others. This is
mainly when it will involve the benefits of reward and
punishment which makes this so-called competition
more real and meaningful.
Therefore, all of us must independently determine
for ourselves whether we are going to succeed or fail this
test. If everyone uses this as their benchmark towards the
meaning of life (passing the test with flying colours) we
would eventually be able to establish a global society
that will achieve justice and fairness without having to
adopt any type of macro system approach to solve all of
mankinds problems.

****
He is Allah besides Whom there is no other God, the
Sovereign, the Holy, the Source of peace (and
perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of
safety, the One Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the
Supreme; Glory to Allah! (High is He) above the
partners they attribute to (Him)

Al-Quran 59:23
What is the purpose of
creation?
 With the mental capabilities and rationality of
thinking, we humans should (by now) acknowledge that
we and our Creator are different. Yes, we do create
things but who created us? No matter how deep our
argument about where we came from or who created us,
we would end up with a finality that there must be only
a Creator, a unique being of divine intelligence who is so
powerful that Hes able to start all that we see. Nothing
of nature can exist without dependence to this being, as
we are never the natural incident that occurred out of
chance or randomness. No matter how advanced we have
become in creating things, we cant create ourselves
from nothing. It is not merely a belief, but a known fact
which cannot be denied. The existence of the unmoved
mover that moves every other thing as prime authority
can no longer be denied. Unless one who wishes to cheat
his rational mind into thinking of something else by not
confronting the truth, nothing can be done to help such a
person.

Can GOD really exist?

There are those who claim themselves as naturalists,
where they believe in natural elements which exist, and
these elements form the only laws and forces operating
in this universe. They are against all supernatural or
spiritual beliefs. To them, natural laws would only
mean the things that govern the structure and behaviour
of the universe, and those which can change it. Their
main belief is on material principles like energy, mass
and other physical or chemical elements. They have a
realistic outlook, believing what is real is true based on
the tangible things that can be considered and accepted.
By being a naturalist, it is understandable that the
inclination is to accept the reality of things rather than
believing spiritual and metaphysical elements which
science has yet to prove. There are so many things in this
world that are still unexplainable, and to these
naturalists, they would rather accept it only when
scientific evidence is made known; i.e. discovering it.
This is mainly due to a lack of scientific research
conducted in that particular area of studies. Chances are,
in the end, they will always fall back to their naturalists
beliefs and remain pessimistic. A scientist who claims
that they are only to be the solution to mankinds
problems or the ultimate answer must surely be an
arrogant person. True scientists would be humble in their
constant search for the truth.
By choosing to be safe than to believe in God is
also understandable since God cannot be proven
scientifically. Science was initially pursued to find
support about the existence of God, but throughout the
passage of time, science had lost its meta-purpose to
acknowledge or strengthen the notion of the greatness of
God, and now only acknowledges what can be known
about our natural elements. But there are so many signs
that support the existence of God; these signs do not need
science to explain them in order to make us believe in
God. It is rather sad to see that the situation persists
among scientists who are truth seekers of knowledge.
 Indeed, the miracle of the universe and things within
it would suggest that there is a Creator. Things do not
pop up from nothing without a Creator. It is logic. If only
people are ready to open their minds to something so
powerful, so superior, so beautiful and majestic. Only
then, with an open mind, would they be able to accept
the existence of God. I encourage them not to leave
things to scientists who have closed their mindset to real
things. Instead, they have to think for themselves. Its
your life and not the life of any scientist. Scientists, in
the historical past, are those who sought to acknowledge
God rather than disprove Him; thus, if any have diverted
from this path, then there is no use for us believing in
them in matters of faith.
In fact, every scientific discovery is actually the
discovery of the miracles of God. They directly or
indirectly prove that God is real and not otherwise. If one
really persists into identifying Gods existence, then one
can clearly see through any scientific finding even
though on the surface it was never stated so. All we need
is to look at the reality of such reports, plus investigate
the arrogance or humility levels of such researchers
regarding their findings. Do they acknowledge God or
not? Their micro finding should never cloud our macro
understanding of God. Know the true reality about God
and His existence which is manifested in everything.
Look at all the things around you. Think. Ponder.
Investigate. Just because you are not knowledgeable
does not mean that you cannot use the qualities of your
own God-given mind. If God did exist when you
disbelieve in Him, what a bankrupt position you will be
in front of Him.
If the world we live in is real and exists, then its
existence must, therefore, by natural laws, have a cause.
The universe, our world and everything that we see
cannot be created out of nothing. It does not make sense
if this cause has a cause itself as it does not fit with the
natural laws. One can argue that if the world was created
by God then who created Him? The answer would be
that is the beauty of it, God is GOD because there is no
creator that created Him. If we do want to go along this
line, then there would not be an end to the investigation.
There must be a conclusion and the rational and logical
one would be to say that God is one and believe that He
has no one that created Him, otherwise, it doesnt make
scientific sense or logic at all. The line of argument must
stop somewhere. What is really important now is to
identify the existence of our Creator through the realistic
nature of our mind and know what we have to do.
We know that everything that exists must have a
creator which caused it to happen. Therefore, the Creator
of this world must be so powerful. We know when the
realists say that the Big Bang theory is true in science,
actually, it shows that there must have been a cause who
caused the event to take place God. A Powerful,
Majestic and awesome being that created such an event.
It is pretty obvious that it cannot create itself without an
intelligent cause. He must therefore be the sole Creator
since scientific evidence acknowledges that no two
causes can create something without having a
contradicting result. Such precision must be from a
power maker. Science had proven that the world we live
in is not a random thing that occurred, but instead, an
unbelievably precise event that begs us to think why is it
like that?
As for the naturalists, if they were to really use their
minds, they should be able to find God, but only if they
really want to. Yet many have made up their minds not
to accept God, irrespective of any kind of proof, findings
or evidence; whether scientifically, logically or
otherwise. Their minds are shut tight to any kind of
reasonable thinking. Chicken and egg is chicken and egg.
Either one can come first. That is true, but what is really
important, irrespective of whichever comes first, is that
there needs to be a Creator to create either of them first
and one shall find that there is no other Creator than God.
Therefore, science is not a total solution of knowledge
concerning God, but a cause to the knowledge and
existence of God. Just because they cannot prove the
existence of God, it does not make it unreasonable for us
to use our logical critical thinking about the existence of
God. The general public must be made aware that
science is not a privileged knowledge meant only for
scientists. Knowledge is so vast beyond all scientists
capabilities, even if they were to combine strength and
knowledge together, it will not able to compare to the
knowledge of God and of His existence.
God is Majestic, the Greatest
If He exists, then the next question would surely be
about His nature and status. Is He great? He is definitely
the Greatest, one and only because He did not only create
us, He is the Creator of every single thing that exists in
the Universe! Billions and billions of creations both on
earth and those in the sky are His creations. Him alone.
No partners and no assistance. Just Him alone and
through His will. The evidence is easy to prove. Just
open your eyes and look around, you will see the
evidence of His creation and His existence. Life is too
beautiful to exist on its own. Impossible! How can
something we see come from nothing with such
perfections? No counter argument would succeed in
denying the Supremacy of creation. God is Majestic
because he can create something from nothing. He must
surely be the only Majestic one. There are no others like
Him; He alone created the entire universe because if
there were many creators, then there would be
contradictions between them which will obviously lead
to eventual chaos. Instead, what we are seeing is
perfection in everything. Imagine a symphony having
more than one conductor?
Many scientist nowadays see in a scientific way
regarding this greatness but refuse to relate their findings
to God and His greatness simply on the premise that
there is no empirical evidence of God. As scientists, they
are basing their beliefs on pure evidence, on a physical
evidence rather than a meta-physical one. Yes, God cant
be seen but that does not mean He does not exist as His
creations are crystal clear. Love cannot be seen but yet it
is the most profound feeling that humans have towards
everything around them. Just because God does not show
Himself that does not mean He is non-existent and non-
examinable. There is a reason for Him not to show
Himself to us. All we need is to understand why. Thus,
we have to use multiple methods, be it inductive or
deductive, and both logical and rational approaches to
know why. A single method alone will not result in a
definitive answer of the greatness of the universe and the
reasons of creations.
God is perfect in His creations. Look at the things
around you and think, you will discover the greatness of
God in everything He had created; either good or bad,
ugly or beautiful and what we consider as useful or not.
One should be in awe of this world and everything in the
universe. How beautiful they are. We have been hearing
astronomers making such statements upon looking at the
beauty of the galaxy they observe. Looking at all life
forms is a magnificent reflection of the Maker. It is
surely sad if these creations were created for no reason
at all. You and me, we are beautiful in every aspect. One
of it is that we are much more superior to all animals
through our ability to think and rationalise, which is the
highest gift for us. We are indeed special. But why has
He done that? There must be a congruence between the
purposes of creating such a perfection in His creations.
As God created us and everything there is in the
universe, surely He did not create everything in vain?
What greater purpose than to make us acknowledge Him
as the Supreme power, His Greatness, His perfection,
His Majestic status? He wants us to submit to Him and
to constantly express and show Him that He is indeed our
Creator and there is nothing else equal to Him. It is only
logical to think in this manner since when we humans
occupy a certain level of status in society, we also would
want people to recognise and acknowledge us for our
ability and success. The higher you are, the more
expectation there is of others to acknowledge you. We
label this as arrogance.
The same goes for God who being the ultimate
creator of everything that exists, wants us to
acknowledge what He has done. Surely the Most
Majestic one of all has the right to be arrogant, and can
be the only one to be arrogant. None other can ever have
such a status claim. Not only regarding His ability to
create, but also the kindness that He has given us for our
sustenance in our living, or even in our very existence.
Look at all the gifts of life He has given us. One usually
takes it for granted regarding His kindness. The ability
to read this book, for example, shows that you are given
the ability of sight and mind which we take for granted.
Not to mention numerous other kindnesses He has
bestowed upon us. Surely He can be arrogant about it.
God wants us to acknowledge Him but that does not
mean He needs us to acknowledge Him. He doesnt need
His creation for such recognitions. As He is already
great, He needs nothing from us. How can a Majestic
power need His subjects to support His reign? If all of
mankind do not pray to Him, it will not affect His
greatness in any way; and if all of mankind prays or do
not pray to Him, it would neither increase nor decrease
His Greatness. He does not need us but we are the ones
that need Him to live and to receive His blessings.
Without Him, we are nothing, non-existent. The function
of the created is to serve; to be subjugated, to surrender
and to totally submit to Him by thanking Him for our
existence. This is the same for everything we have
created in this world to serve us: the clothes, the food,
the cars, the houses, the businesses; yet, we were solely
created by Him to serve Him.
In order for mankind to come to that realisation, it
must be through a proper method of acknowledgement
and not through any other means which contradict His
Majestic status. If we are to acknowledge other than Him
or in any added form other than what He is, then of
course He would be angry with us. Because we are
arrogant that we dare say lies about Him. His state of
angriness towards us is truly justified as being the
Creator of all things. How can His subjects contradict
His supremacy by belittling His status? Surely they are
only asking for His punishment. Certainly He has all the
freedom over His creations to do as He pleases, and to
treat them according to His pleasures. Saying what He is
not and worshiping other than Him such as idols, plants,
mountains, stars, images and pictures how degrading
is that? Bringing His status down to such a nature is very
profane and disrespectful. To relate imperfection with
absolute perfection is totally wrong.
 Whenever humans are misguided into the wrong
method of acknowledging Him, God shows us the proper
way for our submission in the form of prophets so that
mankind is able to respect and follow His command by
acknowledging His Existence. The rightly guided
individuals are selected by God to correct us and do the
right things so as to avoid His anger. For us is not to be
arrogant, we need to recognise His powers and majesty
so that we can be humble in acknowledging this
Greatness of His. No matter who we are. No matter what
religion or belief we attach ourselves to. The reason He
created us is to acknowledge His Majestic powers and
for us to uphold this by doing what He wants us to do,
and avoid all the things He doesnt want us to do. To
acknowledge Him and Him alone. Our test is therefore
one.
But do we all agree to this test? It makes logical
sense that in undergoing any kind of test, we must at one
point in time all agree to undergo such a test, otherwise,
it is not fair for us to be subjected to the outcome of that
test. However, we cant be sure because it is something
that we cant prove. The scientific method isnt able to
prove that because it relies on evidence. Thus, we have
to resort to reasonable beliefs if our existence possesses
a unique purpose which is to undergo a universal test and
a common one, for the common benefit of everyone. If
there is indeed a Creator, then the Creator must be fair
and just. If the imposition of a test is merely given to
certain individuals or groups, then He would not be fair.
Therefore, in light of fairness and justice the test is only
about one question for all mankind. One standard
determination. A universal standard.
There may be people who say it is the belief of those
who believe in God but not for themselves. This test is
for all believers and non-believers alike since the test is
a universal test for a purpose which would be acceptable
to both and beneficial to all mankind. Arrogance in
mankind is the very basis of all wrongful acts as it is
meant for God alone. But then, why create this arrogance
in us? Why did the Supreme Creator create it specifically
for us but not for animals knowing that He alone could
be arrogant?
As we are not allowed by God to be arrogant, at the
same time, we have qualities of becoming arrogant that
is sometimes unavoidable, which is rather odd. But if
everyone accepts that there is a common test in which we
are undergoing today, throughout our lives, then of
course there should also be a right or correct answer.
Because everyone knows whenever there is a test, it will
automatically involve elements of risks and there is a
finality of outcome. Obviously, everyone knows that a
test would eventually be about whether you are going to
win or lose, are right or wrong or pass or fail. Thus, it is
important for us to know the criteria of this test.
Irrespective of time, the test is known by all those
who have passed before us. It contains a common theme.
Some portrayed it in various forms such as love, hate,
anger, envy, kindness, compassion, dignity and many
other human emotions. It is just that we have never
realised that the basis of our perspectives are actually the
same. If not for this test, we would not be in this world.
We will cease to exist.
God wants to test us to see who would do justice,
fairness and equality on this earth. The greatest justice is
when a person is able to submit to Him and obey His
commands. Out of His greatness and kindness, He wants
to ensure that those who had done justice in this world
would receive their compensation and benefit, and those
who commit wrongdoings are rightfully sentenced and
adequately punished.
As God created us for His pleasure, we have no
choice but to submit ourselves to him. Submission is to
the rightful owner and to no one else. We dont have
rights in front of Him. Whatever concept of rights we
have here on this earth are those given by Him, and they
are to be made according to His principles. Any other
rights which goes against that principle will be denying
the greatness of God. Whether we like it or not, we are
His slaves, where we have no free will. Everything is
based on His will, created by Him and Him alone. He
gives Himself the right to command us to submit
ourselves to Him. He only receives our obedience since
he deserves our humbleness and respect. It is only logical
for a Creator to want that. For example, does a father not
feel angry towards his children when he had taken care
of them for so many years with such arduous, difficult,
strenuous, punishing, challenging, tiring tasks of
overseeing them with their endless needs, yet they
disobey him?
 We have to face the fact that we are powerless
creatures. We cant even make ourselves other than to
reproduce whatever is already in existence. Our objects
are based on the basic elements contained within the
earth we live in; rocks, dirt and wood. Worse, we cant
even ensure our own survival. I dont know how arrogant
can someone be if he dares say that we are able to survive
anything. All the natural and unnatural deaths clearly
show that we are powerless against the Might of God.
We cannot resolve issues. No matter what we do, we
humans could never permanently solve anything. There
are always issues that arise from subjects that we thought
had an end to them.
Without dying, it shows that God is Great. If He dies
then the universe will have no guardian and it would
perish. If He dies there would not be justice because
ultimate justice can only be given when we end our lives
in this universe. Only He can live forever, we are not like
Him. We die. Without our deaths, it would only show
that He is not fair; all the things that humans do to one
another will not have any repercussions for their
wrongful acts, acts which originate from arrogance.
Anyone who creates anything also knows how much
they love their creations. How much do parents love their
offspring, their so called creations? God loves us the
same way because He is the one who created us, He loves
all His creations. As a father who loves his children, this
love of a Creator makes rational and logical sense. Look
at how animals care for their offspring. Being the best
Creator of all things, He will surely love His creations
more than anything.
Anyone who denies such Majestic powers of God
are lying to themselves; and thus, not being true to
themselves. As a result, they are ignorant, selfish and
arrogant. What else can be said about them if they cant
even see the truth when all it takes for them to see the
truth is by opening up their minds, think and be in awe
of God? He must be so beautiful to have created such
beautiful things on earth or anywhere in the galaxy. But
some argue about things that occur which might be seen
as God being cruel and not Majestic.

Why does GOD seem to be unfair?

Is God cruel because of all the negative things that
occur to us? Because these occurrences cause us pain?
We being humans cant ignore pain caused by things that
happen to us, whether from someone, something or even
ourselves. Nobody in this world wants pain. All living
things have to suffer pain one way or the other. Because
as created beings, we are never perfect. Only God has no
pain. We are not like robots, without any pain sensations.
We are created mainly to feel pain. Without pain, we will
become arrogant as we are not able to put ourselves into
the proper perspective, that we are merely slaves of God.
Who else has pain? Animals and plants, as living
creations, must have pain. Do you think animals want
pain? Do plants want pain? This is because if you do
some scientific research on whether animals and plants
feel pain, you will discover that they do. An article in the
journal of Animals by Helen Proctor from the World
Society for the Protection of Animals conducted a
systematic review in 2013 on over 2500 scientific
literatures about animal sentience (capacity to feel,
perceive or subjectively experience). She had concluded
that "Evidence of animal sentience is everywhere". Pain
on plants was actively conducted to determine whether
plants feel pain. But is the pain in them somehow
justified?
Animals and plants are created for us humans as the
means of survival. We can utilise them for our own use,
but we cannot be arrogant with such gifts. We have to be
kind and compassionate in our treatment towards them,
always in humility that their existence is to support
mankinds existence. By comparing ourselves to animals
or plants, you might say that we deserve much better
because of our superiority status. But by being
categorised as animals ourselves (in the scientific sense),
we cant ignore or become ignorant that animals (and
plants) are directly subjected to pain because pain is
universal to all living things. No matter what we are and
who they are. The question is, are we better than them
where we have to endure pain differently?
Yes, animals and plants endure pain because they act
to serve us, and it is according to what God had already
destined them to be. But humans are different because
the way we react to pain is different. It is our nature that
we tend to blame someone for our pain. We, at most
times, become angry of this pain that we are suffering. If
it originates or is caused by someone, we want them to
compensate us for causing it. We want them to be
answerable for that kind of infliction and for making us
go through such agony. For example, if the pain was
found to be caused by a criminal, like a murderer, then
lets punish him for causing pain to the deceased
(directly) and to his loved ones (indirectly). This is done
in order to satisfy our pain. Fair isnt it? An eye for an
eye.
If we suffer from something, then obviously we want
to blame someone else, but sometimes the blame game
has its continuous effects. Its the nature of things. Let us
say that your house is suddenly destroyed by a tornado.
Everything of your precious life collection is lost. Do
you blame the tornado? Who else will you blame? God?
Because the tornado is Gods creation and He allowed it
to occur. So is it justified that God is to blame? Definitely
not, because this occurrence might happen to you but
some other occurrence of a similar nature or otherwise
could also happen to someone else. But where is the
justice in that?
Taking the laws that exist in the world as a
comparison in one way or another is basically about
ensuring justice. It is undeniably the foundation of our
society as human beings. Without laws, people are going
to be like animals but much worse. Taking any basic law
on a basic crime, such as murder, remains intact because
of its universal values; even to non-believers. Murder is
wrong. The act of taking someone elses life is not the
given right of any human since the nature of taking lives
only belong to God. Only when He says that it is justified
to take revenge, can someone who has suffered take up
the right to avenge the crime. But if only the person
wronged shows compassion and not anger by forgiving
the matter, the whole effect of that crime would end.
Because revenge, even though justified, has many
repercussions that are mostly negative towards human
relationships, towards the wrongdoer (as he might have
those who are dependent on him), but mostly towards the
wronged because in retaliation, he might go beyond
justifications and, thus, become arrogant while taking
such action. Perhaps, that is why punishment for criminal
offences are given to the state. But if one is to continue
arguing about fairness, then he would eventually come
face-to-face with the arrogance of the Creator since
everything happens because God allows it to occur. God
can prevent it from happening but should He prevent all
things, and only when He does that can we say that He is
fair and just? Would it be fair to help someone but not
someone else? Or better still, should God help all of us
and end this world but put us only in heaven?
We have to understand that we suffer because it was
ordained by God. God allows it to happen to us. This is
exactly what will happen whenever a person undergoes
a test. Is it fair when everyone undergoing a task have to
endure such conditions? Ask any army cadet undergoing
military training and you will get an honest answer. They
have to endure the constant pressure and pain just to
make it to the end, to become a soldier. How I wish that
we didnt have to go through all these worldly tests, but
we cant avoid it. We are already here on earth and it is
of our own choice that we had chosen in the past as a
way to show our love towards God. We have to now
endure them. Otherwise, we are not to be here at all.
It is a fact of life that everyone must endure some
sort of pain one way or another. It is how the pain is to
be endured as the Creator of pain is God and He gives
pain to anyone He likes for the purpose of testing how
would we respond to such pain; whether we are thankful
for not suffering any greater pain or arrogant and argue
that we should not be tested by receiving such pain. It is
like saying to God: who do you think you are to do such
a thing to me? Does that sound arrogant? If we say that
God exists and that He created us and provides us with
everything then shouldnt it be that everything He gave,
either good or bad, are from Him and that what we need
to do is thank Him? Because in a way, He cares about us
to make us realise our vulnerable position and know our
place in the cosmos, when He can just ignore us and let
us go astray by continuing to commit crimes against
Him. Crimes of arrogance against the Majestic one.

How can a just GOD be unjust?

I hope by now you at least acknowledge that God is
Great. God created suffering because of the test. Surely
we can now accept the notion of undergoing a test, but
what about those suffering who are God-loving
individuals and innocent children? How about the
sufferings of animals and other creatures existing in the
world? We have seen birth defects, disease, disasters,
fires, floods, famines and plagues. Are they Gods
handiwork? Is God cruel by being unjust to them?
Yes, all those are His works, and no He cant be
cruel. How can a just and loving God be cruel at the same
time? But it looks like God is unjust. Because surely, He
cant be both just and unjust. This standard of
measurement on whether someone is just or unjust is the
humans evaluation, and cannot be used for the Most
Powerful Being. It does not make logical sense because
such a statement when applied is deducing that there is a
superior being above Him who is able to weigh His
actions, when logically, there is none. By being Majestic,
He can act in any way He likes. Not to be judged or
assessed in any way.
One might continue to argue that how can a caring
and loving God be cruel at the same time based on the
incidences which occur everywhere that indicate that
God is unjust? Being Majestic means that all natural
catastrophes are of His creation, though some of them
might have originated from His creations, like man-made
disasters coming from industrial pollutions. God created
the world in such a nature to split and change over time.
Tsunamis is a good example of a direct tribulation of
God resulting from underwater earthquakes. He creates
those tribulations for us to face His test on this earth. The
test of whether we are able to acknowledge that He is
truly great.
Surely this, in itself, looks like He is unjust. Is it fair
for Him to do that? Well, is He not the Creator of us and
the universe? Are we not here because of Him? He is the
Supreme Being. No other is above Him. If He is truly our
Creator, then He can do anything He likes. He creates
and He kills as He pleases. Life and death are part of the
natural process of time. There is no need for Him to
justify anything to us humans, who are His mere
creations. He never needs to answer to anyone. After all,
everything that He created is ultimately for the process
of the test to be endured on this earth. Can a test be
conducted without any kind of trial, directly or
indirectly?
All tribulations are created merely for that test. He
did not do it for fun. There is a purpose in doing such
things. He is by default never cruel. Natural evil, as
some like to call it, are Gods creations mainly for the
test. They are not evils but simply tests. Whenever
there are tsunamis or earthquakes somewhere, the people
affected by it are actually undergoing their own test
(directly); whether they accept their tests by being
humble or by being arrogant. Can He avoid having any
animals during that Tsunami not die? Of course He can.
But should He do that when all destructions are inter-
related? Sometimes, these tests relate to us (indirectly),
one way or another, to see whether we are going to help
those who are suffering (animals, plants or humans alike)
by not being arrogant in taking care of our own well-
being instead of giving them a helping hand.
We are constantly undergoing our own list of tests.
Every single one of us. Maybe it is not tsunamis or
earthquakes, but different kinds of forms. By having
everyone with their own test then He stands to be just
and fair to everyone. Of course, He can allow us to have
no test at all, thus, there is no pain; but that defeats the
purpose of us being here, for Him to see who would pass
the test of showing obedience towards Him by
acknowledging Him as the Supreme Being and The
Majestic one. Witnessing such Majestic power should
make us humans be in awe of His capabilities, therefore,
a constant reminder for us that for such a limited time
that each one of us has on this earth, we are not to be
arrogant towards Him.
When we see any destruction, who are we to judge
our Creator of what He can or cannot do? He can save
whichever creature and take away the lives of others as
He pleases. Death will come to us and all living things in
their own way, irrespective of whether we like it or not.
If anyone is allowed to choose, then again, what is the
point of having a test? For example, who are we to say
that it is not fair and evil for God to make a deer suffer
as the outcome of a burn from a forest fire? It is already
ordained and according to the natural law of the world.
That is already fated on how death and suffering comes
to any living creature. This is akin to saying that why
should a child have to suffer a certain disease even
though the child had not done any wrong at all. The
suffering is not for the child, though it is very true that
the child is suffering, but purposely, it is for those who
are undergoing the test: the parents, the family members,
the community and all of humanity, on how they are able
to control themselves; are they going to be angry with
God or will they refuse to do anything to resolve the
suffering? Then they are indeed arrogant by undermining
God on what He can or cannot do. Indeed, when we do
that, we have failed. We have to accept the reality of this
test and proceed to acknowledge the power of God in the
monitoring and administration of all His creations.
It is also pretty obvious that the test is not going to
be the same for everyone, but the total weightage of
these tests (if one were to sum them up) are the same. So
everyone would be tested the same quality of suffering,
though not of equal quantity. Imagine if there is to be just
one situational test, then it would be easy. Imagine going
to a test when you already know what the questions will
be, or are told to expect that same question which
someone else had taken. That is not fair to those who sit
for the earlier test. What is the point of having
multiplicity of characters and situations? The same goes
for the exam situation. We do have a variety of questions
but they carry the same amount of marks. However, is it
logical for the test to increase as God wants to test how
true our humbleness is towards Him? Simply because the
degree of return for being successful in the test would
also be different.
However, even though the nature of the test is
different, the aim is the same. The test is specifically
about the test of arrogance. Whether we are patient in
receiving this test or will we be arrogant by blaming God
for such incidents that happen to us and not others. The
more inclined you are to the fact of acknowledging God
as the most Majestic, the more you are humble, and the
more you are going to be tested. It is only fair for God to
do that. Because the rewards are of different categories.
Like in a worldly test where some will get A+ and some
will get a C, both passed the test but the category of
achievements is different. I guess that explains the unjust
distribution of suffering as to why bad things happen to
good people. Prophets were killed even though they had
brought the truth of God to mankind. You kill the very
person who tries to bring you out from darkness towards
the correct path? How ironic!
Another reason is because both qualities (arrogance
and humility) are contradictory to each other. One cannot
say they are humble while their hearts are full of
arrogance. No matter how one hides it from God, the
truth is known. God is proud of those who are able to
show their humbleness and not have any signs of
arrogance in their hearts. Arrogance is why God created
mankind. As a boast of His greatness. Because he has
every right to do so. No one or anything can question
Him.
It is because of His Majestic and Greatness that He
is Arrogant. He has every right to be so. His greatness
supersedes everything else. He is proud of His creations.
He is the only one that could claim arrogance and no one
else. He dislikes and despises those who claim that status
in their lives. No human can be arrogant. Not a single
atom of arrogance can ever be in their hearts. Having
arrogance in us would be tantamount to challenging Him
as the Creator. He who owns everything can only be the
one who can be arrogant. We humans are never complete
in our ownership of things and we never will be.
 Arrogance is the cause of every evil created by
mankind on earth; our own doing. Without arrogance,
humans will have humbleness and when that happens, all
the good things we see around us will materialise. How
can humans, as a mere speck of dirt in the whole
universe, call themselves Majestic? Especially against
the Creator? Go and see the size of our earth compared
to the known galaxies, and then look at the size of the
universe. Let us face the fact that we were never majestic
and never will be, no matter how much some of us wish
to be. We will never be like God. Arrogance is only for
Him alone. Thats why he declared Himself to us as God
so that we acknowledge Him and are able to
acknowledge His Supremacy and Majestic power of
creations.
He wants to see whether our submission is true. He
would only test those who he knows are able to accept
His tests. He did not overburden us with tests that we
cannot control. Whenever a person, when tested, cannot
accept such a test then he will retaliate and blame God.
Thus, the person will fail.
Therefore, the purpose of creation is that God wants
us to acknowledge that he is Majestic and is the only one
to be arrogant. This is His quality and His alone. Having
arrogance in us would mean that we have failed the test
and deserve the wrath of God on this earth and the next.
It is logical for God to be angry. It is human nature
for a father who create his child to be angry towards his
child when the child disobeys him, then think of a
Creator towards his creations (in this case, towards the
father & child) when He is the most Loving God. His
love towards us is so much more than any parent
anywhere would ever have for their child. All we have to
do is do what He wants us to do. If He asks us to pray
(submit) and acknowledge Him, we are not giving Him
anything, but instead, collecting more and more of the
things He would give to those who submit. Prof. Muchtar
Lintang, in His book Hikmah Surat al-Fatihah (Wisdom
of The Al-Fatihah Verse), the love of God towards
mankind is like a grandparent (who misses the
grandchild so much) and wishes to see the child not so
that the child can give him anything at all, but so that the
grandparent can give the child gifts. It is sad to see that
after God had given us practically everything, we have
become ignorant and abuse our position on earth by
becoming arrogant. We go against His scriptures which
intended to remind us not to be arrogant.
If there is no punishment (or reward) then there
should not be a test. Then He cant be called the most
Just. A test without positive or negative outcomes is
never a test. It is pure punishment and God never
punishes someone for things they dont deserve to be
punished for.
In summary, what is the purpose of creation? It is the
way God manifested Himself regarding His Majestic
Supremacies His Arrogance and we are to submit
ourselves to Him throughout the test which are already
ordained to every single one of us.

****
And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate
before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees. He
refused and was arrogant and became of the
disbelievers.

Al Quran 2:34
What is the purpose of life?
The Purpose of life
Since God is Majestic, only he can claim Arrogance,
while we humans who are never majestic, cant. Thus,
our purpose in life as humans is never to be arrogant and
always be humble. This formula represents the actual
purpose of our life. It is the very foundation of what we
are, why we are here and what we are supposed to do.
When each of us is finally able to reach this
understanding, all good behaviours and conducts are
easily achievable, and evil and wrongdoings can quickly
be determined. The task is personal in nature, to be
carried out by every single one of us, at every level of
function or status we hold on earth. The test is not meant
to be carried out by the organisation, society or nations,
but by those individuals who control all these domains
where they themselves are not to be arrogant.
Children who have not gained maturity of mind, and
those with unsound minds, are excluded from the test.
They are mindless bodies that are not able to reasonably
differentiate between what is right and what is wrong.
The test for any child would only start when he have
come of age since it is only fair, as young offenders, that
they recognise and accept being different by all legal
jurisdiction around the world with certain variations of
how they are tried and punished. This should mostly be
based on their knowledge and mental capabilities to
differentiate between right and wrong actions. But in the
eyes of God, their benchmark would be on their
arrogance, if indeed they have attained sufficient
knowledge. As what Mufti Ismail ibn Musa Menk said,
their existence is the test for their own parents, their
siblings, for their community and for the rest of
humanity.
This test applies to everyone else, no matter who you
are, as long as you are a human being and hold some
responsibilities then the test is to be applied to you.
Nations, societies and organisations are never wrong but
are attributed to the arrogance of their leaders. Those
who make decisions. It is them to be blamed personally.
Companies, for example, may have done illegal acts such
as illegal toxic waste dumping, but they are merely legal
entities with no true will of their own. Those who make
decisions to pollute must be personally held responsible
because their decision, if investigated further, is of
arrogance.
Yes, I agree that this may seem like a simple test, but
I would say it is very difficult to achieve at all times
because the test is continuous and constant throughout
our lifetime, every second of it. That is why it is quite
difficult, but nevertheless, I sincerely believe it is
achievable. Otherwise, it would not justify the existence
of heaven if it is not achievable. God is never sadistic or
cruel. It goes against His Majestic status. The same for
justice, if it is not attainable, then surely there is no
justification of the existence of the concept of justice nor
would the existence of heaven and hell be justified.
This test would end the very second we die, and we
are not going to be responsible for anything else
immediately after that. Thus, each one of us is actually
sitting for the same test which is moving towards the
ultimate deadline, death. It has been like that and always
will be until the end of time. With the existence of this
test, it would make sense that God is equal and just to all
of us on what we do and how we live our lives, as well
as, the method of determining who had passed and who
had failed.
The main concern of the test is basically about the
arrogance within us. We are not to have any kind of
arrogance at any time. Arrogance is a feeling that was
purposely placed within us for the test, purely because
arrogance in humans is the foundation to all
wrongdoings. The next time you see someone do
something "evil", go deeper to investigate their level of
arrogance, at the time it had taken place. Nobody will
commit anything bad unless they have a level of
arrogance in them. Just look at the dark triad; a group
of three personality traits: narcissism (excessive self-
love), Machiavellianism (manipulative attitude) and
psychopathy (lack of empathy). You will eventually
appreciate why they have the inclination to do bad things
to others. Because of the arrogance that they had retained
in them, and by holding on to their arrogance, it makes
them do all types of merciless acts. Scientists are still
trying to figure out the communality factors between
them and, for the time being, have found that there are
indeed overlapping factors; however, these factors are of
a distinct construct. Yet I believe if studies are conducted
using arrogance as a construct, then they would be
surprised to see the outcome.
 In quoting examples, I trust you must have, on so
many occasions, been dumbstruck by situations where
you are unable to understand why someone was able to
do something that they did? Things which makes you
feel and say, This is completely unacceptable. Just
doesnt make sense at all. For example, when people kill
someone else in cold blood. Why are terrorists able to
blast themselves up without logical justifications? Why
are people able to steal or rob someone elses property?
Why do people rape? In short, why do humans behave in
adverse actions when they should not? All these crimes,
savagery, carnage, killings, murders, ferocity, cruelty,
violence, sadism, brutality, hurtfulness, unkindness and
malice all originate from arrogance. One can realise such
commonalities if one was to just probe deeper than usual.
It is just a matter of psychological investigation to
validate that.
Arrogance is when one thinks that he is more
superior to the next person in any kind of issue. It is a
mental condition, a state of mind at a particular moment.
Boasting about yourself while thinking and believing
that the other person has less knowledge, status and
conditions than what you have. Even if you are right, and
especially when you are wrong. For example, a robber
robs a person or organisation surely for something of
value which he could use for his personal gain. Let us
look at the moment where he enters into the act of
robbing. He must have arrogance before acting out; and
especially during the robbery hes committing.
Otherwise, he would not be able to act it out at all. He
must be able to somehow boost his courage into thinking
that the victim is lesser than him in one way or another,
where he could easily make them succumb into
submitting to his act of robbing, thus, giving up all their
valuables for him to take away. He would further
reinforce his mental arrogance by using weapons or any
kind of assistance to ensure that it will somehow make
him more superior than his victims.
Arrogance will lead us into making the wrong
decisions, and those decisions are the ones that lead to
negative results even if, at first, our intention might be
for good reasons. A robber who robs for a good purpose
(example: his baby is hungry) is wrong for the fact that
the act of robbing is of arrogance and arrogance is wrong
irrespective of how good the outcome is. A suicide
bomber who bombs himself is arrogant when he aims his
act towards innocent parties; civilians who are not his
true enemy. What did they do to you? Just because they
belong to a country where their leaders are arrogant
enough to bomb your country, does that make it
justifiable for them (the innocent) to be killed? Is it not
arrogant? Think. The fictional character Robin Hood is
arrogant when he steals from the state for reasons which
he thinks is good. Denying other peoples right is a clear
manifestation of arrogance and the result of arrogance
will never be good. It justifies wrongdoings for others
who will follow suit in this example. Furthermore, what
about the rights of the owner of the money if it was taken
away from them. Is it not injustice?
 Arrogance is not like having fire as your friend when
it is small, but when it grows, its out of control. Fire is
indeed a friend when it is small, used for the means of
warmth, production of food, a source of illumination and
so many other uses; but having arrogance (even though
small) would not generate anything useful at all. It will
only produce damaging results. Arrogance will lead to
negative outcomes. Arrogance is the root of all evil.
Arrogance is different from self-esteem or
confidence. One can surely have these feelings in order
to not be left out of society, because there are always
people who are arrogant that will surely take advantage
of others lack of self-confidence and inferiority
complexes. Just because someone is arrogant, is it
justified for that person to use arrogance towards others?
We must, instead, use our self-esteem and confidence to
make it through. Nevertheless, pride, vanity and self-
importance are from the arrogant attitude and they are
never the same as self-esteem or confidence.
One example to differentiate arrogance, selfishness
and humility would be through an illustration of a sample
situation in life, and my illustration would be driving on
a highway.
Selfishness is when a person is not arrogant but has
all possible inclinations toward arrogance. Let us say that
you are taking the highway in order to go to work and
you are driving alone in the car. You are selfish because
you are ensuring that you will arrive to your destination
(work) on time, therefore, you rather not take with you
any other passengers as it is your right to enjoy such
driving without the presence of others; it would be quite
inconvenient to take others because of the additional
time it will take if you do so. There is definitely nothing
wrong with that, you are not breaking any moral or legal
laws at all. It is just that you are selfish when the space
could be used for helping others, which is economical
and environmentally friendly. We have seen this
situation all the time.
Arrogance occurs when you start feeling pressure to
ensure you arrive at the destination on time, so you start
speeding, ignoring the speed limit and maybe driving
recklessly without caution towards other highway users
who wish to have a safe journey. You can argue that you
are cautious while driving but the stress and possible
anger or anxiety is a stage of arrogance that is taking
place in your body, mind and heart.
This stage could easily increase to another level
when someone else is also equally arrogant. Then you
will see fighting over any available opportunity
especially during a traffic jam, this behaviour is easily
observable. Similarly, you might be taking the
emergency lane to avoid such a situation where you are
not fighting for space. The risk is actually yours alone,
and if the authorities caught you, you are to pay the fines.
But the fact that you are taking a risk involves the risk of
transferring it to others who are not arrogant. If indeed
there was a valid emergency situation, like you want to
relieve yourself at the nearest stop, then you are not
arrogant by using it. Otherwise, it is not justified. An
argument that you are late cannot be a valid excuse as
you are arrogant to deny the right of others to be on time,
and not be at risk of accidents due to your arrogance.
Another arrogant situation in this example can be
that the selfish driver, upon looking at your eagerness to
drive fast, purposely slows down to cause you more
stress or begins to behave like a policeman on the road,
thus, he has changed his status to arrogant mode. Driving
slowly at a lane meant for fast speed is also arrogant,
along with those who dont use their signal lights when
changing lanes. These acts might not breach legal
provisions, but are surely arrogant in the moral sense.
Nowadays, there are those who use emergency lights
meant for the police so that they can gain access, which
is also arrogant and legally wrong.
If there is indeed an emergency situation that is
taking place like an accident, for example, it would be
selfish to not stop and help out; but if the situation is
believed to be a risk since so many arrogant criminals
pretend to suffer from accidents and use the humility of
others to take the opportunity to rob, rape or kill, then it
is not arrogant. Not taking the proper method of stopping
simply to help those involved in the accident is also
arrogant as it can cause danger to others. One of another
obvious act of arrogance is by not allowing an
ambulance or emergency vehicles to pass through traffic.
While not being considerate to those who are smaller
than you is also arrogance, for example a car driver who
refuses to acknowledge a motorcycle by allowing it to
pass through or a lorry driver towards a car driver.
 Helping to move a danger out of the way of others is
humility, along with making the effort to inform others,
or giving way for others. Helping others to share the
vehicle by carpooling is also humility. It used to be safe
for people to take hitchhikers, but not nowadays, so those
who do not stop to take any hitchhikers are not arrogant
nor are they humble.
The above illustration can be simulated on any kind
of situation. In any investigation of arrogance, humility
and selfishness, the enquiry is towards the point of
arrogance where all moral and legal wrong takes place.
Looking at the diagram below, I stated that in all our
human acts, we have to deal with the test of arrogance
and humility because they are opposite to each other. A
person who has arrogance and acknowledges and
cultivates it in his mind would increase the level of
arrogance and this incremental trend would have a
significantly negative impact on that person. A criminal
initially commits petty crimes out of arrogance, but over
time, when his arrogance level goes up, he would end up
committing higher crimes. Unless the criminal repents
and makes an effort to acknowledge his arrogance and
removes it from himself will he then be able to change to
a better person. Even better for him would be to instil
humility so that he is able to ensure safe distance over
the possibility of being arrogant again. A rapist would
rape more and become a serial rapist because of the
continued arrogance he would have over the victims. He
will never be able to turn back if he keeps on being
arrogant. But once he repents and ensures the removal of
all arrogance in him through humility would he be able
to stop from raping. Jail sentences or any other type of
corporal punishment would help to remind him to repent
and remove the arrogance, but definitely jail time does
not ensure that he will become a good person unless he
himself wants to. We have seen the repeat offenders
committing crime after being released from prison
(Recidivism). The highest level of arrogance in crime
would be of murder and the highest for humans is when
he claims himself as God.

Arrogance Theory (AT)

Arrogance

Peak of Arrogance
Incremental Arrogance (Claiming to be GOD)
(Crime against GOD) ARROGANCE
Repent

0 SELFISHNESS

Acknowledge of
existence of GOD
HUMILITY

Fluctuations of Arrogance
in a human being
Human Acts
Ibn Taymiyyah, in his observations, also came to the
same conclusion where he wrote in his book Diseases of
the Hearts and their Cures, so the first type of heart
is the living, humble, soft and gentle heart [humility].
The second is a dry, harsh and dead heart [selfish]. The
third is the heart which is deceased, it can either be made
secure or have its destruction sealed [arrogant].
Whenever the level of arrogance is higher than the level
of love, respect, honour, sincerity and goodness within
themselves, then they will end up doing immoral and
criminal acts.
I call this the Arrogance Theory where it is a test to
always be humble and never have arrogance since
arrogance is only meant for God and Him alone, due to
His Majestic status, and He distastes those who claim
equal status to Him. Arrogance is put in us as an object
in the test because God wants us to prove our respect for
Him as God. Like any test, it has an objective (purpose)
to it in all the questions asked; to test our knowledge in
such a field. The same goes for the test of life, which is
to test us regarding our arrogance towards God. The test
is in each and every activity of our life, throughout our
lives, and until we die.
God doesnt want us to go against him. Not that He
will be negatively affected by our arrogance because He
is already the Ultimate Creator, the Majestic, and
Almighty God. As the only Creator of every single thing
in the universe, nothing can compare or affects Him in
anyway. If we do acknowledge anything else greater
than God, then why call Him God if it is otherwise? Why
associate him with something unworthy of
acknowledgement than Him? Why say things that He is
not? Why do we become so arrogant? A truth must be
stated as the truth. If equate anything else to Him, then it
is we who are arrogant. By disclaiming that he is God, it
is the greatest evil mankind could ever do.
Arrogance must be for God and Him alone. The
attitude is merely given to us just for the test. A test for
which the Devil had failed. He failed to bow down to
Adam by saying he is a much greater creation than Adam
since he was created from the fire element but Adam was
created from clay and earth, which is substandard
compared to fire. His arrogance towards God, by
disobeying Gods command, ended him in hell for all
eternity. He asked to seek vengeance towards mankind
(even though it was never our fault) and was allowed
postponement of such punishment as an added element
to the test of arrogance for mankind where he, the Devil
(one of the highest angel), had failed miserably. Adam
(pbuh) had failed the arrogance test while he was in
Heaven because he was seduced by the devil when he ate
the forbidden fruit, which was an arrogant act that defied
what God commanded him to not do and this caused him
and Eve to be removed from the garden of Heaven.
God being Majestic is also the Most Merciful. He
can forgive anyone anytime He wants to because He is
the most Loving God, Majestic in Power. As long as we
are able to submit to Him by being humble and not
arrogant, then we will be at peace with Him and with the
relationship of His creations; mankind, animals, the earth
and universe. Everything. It is a matter of humans who
dont want to ask for forgiveness that are arrogant which
makes them fail the test. The story of Pharaoh of Egypt
(Ramses) who was asked not to call himself God by the
reminder, Moses, is a classic story of arrogance at the
highest level. The Pharaoh can repent and submit to God
but he refused to do so and faced the wrath of God, which
was told to us through revelations so that we dont repeat
his mistake.
Arrogance is timeless. It crosses the space of time, it
has always been with mankind and always will be. Every
culture and civilisation knows what arrogance is.
Arrogance is what differentiates us from animals. We
have arrogance in us, whereas animals dont. They might
look like they have arrogance but science will prove that
they dont. What they have is merely the instinct of
survival.
Arrogance is a universal character. It can be
identified anywhere, in any locality, culture and society
in this world, whether they are civilised or in a distant
jungle somewhere far from others, everyone will know
what is arrogance. Since it is a universal character, it can
appease the agnostics and atheists because even they
have to agree that arrogance exists in people. Everyone
has it, no one is excluded. It is in-built within us, and
never dies.
 Arrogance
Arrogance Theory (AT)
ARROGANCE
Not Acceptable
Wrongdoings

Law should be
based on
Standards SELFISHNESS
Arrogance to
bring back
towards HUMILITY
humility Acceptable
Wright doings

Fluctuations of Arrogance
in a human being
Human Acts

The best approach would be by adopting it in as a

moral universalism. Be humble, with humility towards
humans (for non-believers) and God (for believers) and
never arrogant. It is a meta-ethical position of invariant
moral truth where everyone can accept such status.
Humbleness, as a universal ethic, applies to all regardless
of religious background, race, sex, culture and
nationality. It is a moral judgement in identifying right
and wrong. Both arrogance and humility are the tools in
making that moral decision.
Adopting a universal moral decoder in which every
wrong action, in order to be justified, would need to be
scrutinised to determine the level of arrogance in that
particular person at that point in time. Basically, in the
legal sense (law), this would be based on the evidence
produced in supporting the argument whether a person is
arrogance or otherwise. Thus, this moral judgement can
be rationally defensible, true or false; a rational method
of using procedural tests to clearly identify morally
impermissible actions. We make our own choice because
God gave us the will to choose whether our conducts end
up in arrogance or humility.
The following sub-topics are mainly for the purpose
of exploring the application of the theory. I did not want
to expand on them due to the length of the book, which I
intend to keep short, without losing the adequate
explanations needed. I hope that you could further
explore them yourself with the theory I just presented.

Ethics (Moral Philosophy)

Ethics is about how to evaluate the right and wrong
of human conducts and is used by moral philosophers to
try and determine the truth about morality. Ethics in
philosophy is separated into the following subject areas:
meta-ethics (origins of truth about ethics), normative
ethics (general practical ethics), descriptive ethics (study
of people's beliefs about morality) and applied ethics
(practised ethics). They could all adopt a common
approach whenever a persons act is to be determined;
whether their behaviour is right or wrong. The
combination of arrogance and humility tests could be
used in solving these ethical issues about ethics.
However, I am going to discuss them in the light of meta-
ethics as this would be the greater field of all, and if the
answer is acceptable, it can be applied to the rest.
Meta-ethics is the study of the origin and meaning of
ethical concepts. Questions such as "What is goodness?"
and "How can we tell what is good from bad? are
among the questions raised by philosophers to determine
whether they are of eternal (spiritual) or purely human
conventions (customs). If ethics is indeed directly linked
to arrogance of a person, then it may establish the
association that is missing between the spiritual world
and the physical world. As Plato who similarly classifies
that mathematics is an area of knowledge accepted to be
eternal and timeless concept, never created, nor can we
ever change it, but it remains a real concept that is
applicable in our daily lives, so does humility and
arrogance.
Arrogance is real, absolute and an eternal condition
in us, no one created arrogance but it is found in all of
us, and it also has a universal and timeless applicability.
Even the ancient Greeks specifically mentioned
arrogance as hubris in their texts. One might not be able
to hold arrogance physically, but one cannot deny its
existence; its there. If arrogance is indeed a human
creation alone, then how can it be universally
recognised? Humans realise things because they are
inherently bound to discover what is already there in
themselves. Which further explains the universality of its
application.
Assertions about the various degrees of ethical
interpretations by different societies throughout the
world should surely not be taken as mere human
creations, just because the individuals and groups
holding them in relation to culture, society or historical
context say so. Even though there are various
interpretations of ethics by different societies, one cannot
deny a sense of a common underlying basis, no matter
who they are or which groups or cultures they belong to.
Arrogance has always been accepted as an unwelcomed
trait in anyone, and in any society or culture. One can
identify such evidence in literatures that elaborate the
arrogance within a given culture and society. With
arrogance, there is need for ethics to exist. We become
like animals who dont have ethics. If ethics is to be
judged based on arrogance, then it would be able to
integrate both views of a more cohesive and more logical
outlook towards universal morality.

Ethics

Social Justice

Moral Justice

Moral Wrong

Legal justice

Legal Wrong
 Another big thing about meta-ethics is the concern
of why be moral? As I have said, since morality and
ethics go hand in hand, there is the need to determine
why a person has a certain standard in morality. Simply
because arrogance is evil, bad, unwanted and have
badness associated with it. Nothing good ever comes
from arrogance. Secondly, why be moral? Because
morality contains goodness which originates from
humility and it is always right to have morality as your
companion. Humility makes a person moral because
with humility, it will divert a persons actions toward
goodness rather than evilness.
Ethics is, therefore, about avoiding being arrogant in
whatever condition and doing things with humbleness.
This involves the feeling that one would normally have
at the very moment the instance in which a particular
ethical questioned is being raised. For example,
whenever you see someone elses gold bracelet or hand
phone lying on the floor or table, the moment you see
someone injured or crying for help, a beggar on the
streets asking for shelter, a poor person who doesnt have
money even to eat, the elderly who try to cross a busy
road, sharp and dangerous objects lying in the middle of
the street, cats asking for food, etc. The list can go on and
on. At that very moment in time, there is only two things
that are to be identified: arrogance or humility. If the
person is arrogant, then he will not find the owner of the
gold bracelet or may even take it for himself, not helping
those who ask for help, not giving shelter to the beggar
or money to that poor person, not removing the sharp
object from the middle of the street, not giving food to
the cat these are all unethical behaviours based on
arrogance.
It is not really about avoiding punishment by society
(thats not sincere) nor is it about gaining praises from
others to attain happiness, or to be dignified by others or
to be able to fit in with society! All of the above would
be for arrogant purposes. If we were to use arrogance as
the standard of test, then it is self-evident regarding the
morality of a person and the level of humility in them,
and if a person believes in God then they have to portray
this morality not to others, but to God. Because God
never likes his subjects to be arrogant. He would be the
final judge of our behaviour and we are not responsible
to anyone else but God.

Ethical Dilemma
One of the major issues discussed on ethical
dilemma is about the act of stealing food, especially
when death is imminent. Imagine there is a chaotic
situation in society. Would you steal in order to survive?
Especially when it involves your loved one who is
struggling to survive? The economy has collapsed. Law
and order is gone. Your family members are hungry. I
hope that we would never be faced with this dilemma.
But we should not avoid such a possibility thats seen
throughout time and time again in conditions of war,
conflicts and famine which exists all over the world. I am
going to evaluate three instances which could take place.
 The first is when the other party is rich. Would it be
acceptable to steal from him for your survival? The
answer is no certainly not. But why? He is already rich
this whole time he had enjoyed his life, and now its
our time why not? It would be selfish for that
perpetrator to ignore the rights of others, regardless of
whether the person is rich or even arrogant while being
rich. It would still be arrogant to steal. Why? Could this
be a valid and justifiable defence in the court of law? Of
course it would not be. But there would be no existing
law at that time. Yes, it might be an alleviating factor but
it would nevertheless be classified as a crime. The issue
of why the rich party does not help out since he has
ample food to give is equally arrogant, but stealing
cannot be justified by arrogantly ignoring his right and
possessions over his property.
Secondly, when the parties are of equal need for food
to survive, it would be equally arrogant for both parties
to steal from each others food supply for survival.
Ignoring each others rights is against the nature of rights
itself; thus, arrogance. Thats because only those who are
arrogant enough would dare steal someone elses food
supply, whereby, they think that they are more deserving
or have more rights to life than the owners of the food
themselves. This is against the most fundamental
element of being a human; liberties and rights. This
superiority feeling over others is what makes such
actions possible. We will then end up being no different
than animals. Using humbleness and humility to solve
problems would be a better way, by sharing whatever
you have to the very end and when there is no more,
leave it to God to decide your fate. Why steal when you
can ask, or worse, beg for kindness? But if there is none
given then surrender to God, and if indeed God had fated
that you shall die from hunger, then so be it. Choosing
not to steal because of your respect to God is better than
living with arrogance. Those who didnt help you out are
answerable to God for being arrogant.
Third, and the most daunting, is when there is no
party to steal from but from your own circle. Would you
allow such an act to take place? It is arrogant for us to
allow people to steal things (food) which is rightfully
ours. But would you sacrifice your food to make sure
other people survive? This level of humility completely
contrasts arrogance. God recognises humility as a
virtuous value because a person with humility can never
be an arrogant person at the same time. Self-sacrifice is
never arrogance but is the highest indication of humility
that there is; rejecting self-arrogance. People do go to
war for the same reasons. Putting themselves at risk in
defence of others are the highest rejection of self-
arrogance there is. But the determination of whether they
can identify why they go into war is another issue in
determining whether they are ignorant or arrogant.
Regarding the poor and rich, if one was to compare
those who are rich and arrogant to those who are poor
and arrogant, the ones who are poor are worse off
because they did not do anything to change their lives,
since sometimes they refuse to work by opting to only
beg instead. While sometimes, they opt to steal from
others on the pretext that these people deserve to have
their extra wealth removed because these people had
obtained such wealth through their own greed or
deceitful ways. Therefore, they say, it is justified to steal
from such wealthy people. How wrong and arrogant they
are! So being arrogant by not wanting to do anything to
improve themselves in their situation will be a clear
evidence of arrogance of a higher degree compared to
those who are rich and arrogant in the eyes of God.

Morality
Morality, which comes from the Latin word
moralitas, meaning "manner, character, proper
behaviour", tries to differentiate what is proper and what
is not, between right and wrong, where it carries the
synonym of goodness and rightness. Nevertheless, there
is no standard of morality because it had been perceived
and applied in a different way by numerous cultures and
localities.
Plato, in his book Euthyphro, depicted Socrates
questioning Euthyphro about the status of piousness of
a person, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is
pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" or
to put it in a simpler form, "Is whats morally good
commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it
morally good because it is commanded by God?" This
question was recognised as the Euthyphro dilemma. This
dilemma raised issues of interpretation, as well as,
debated by many philosophers. One of them was a
German philosopher, Gottfried Leibniz, who said It is
generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and
just. But there remains the question whether it is good
and just because God wills it or whether God wills it
because it is good and just; in other words, whether
justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong
to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of
things.
Looking at this issue from the theory which I am
proposing, the issue is, therefore, self-answered. Gods
commandment is for humans not to be arrogant and by
not being able to be arrogant, one can only act in humility
and since all actions of humility produces goodness, this,
in turn, produces what is morally good. It is not because
morally good by itself is morally good, but because the
effects of when a person follows Gods commandments
by not being arrogant.
For example, in the ten commandments, God asked
humans to not do all the things listed like having other
gods instead of Him, making idols, taking Gods name
in vain, to remember Sabbath day, to honour both
parents, to not murder, to not commit adultery, to not
steal, to not bear false witness and, finally, to not covet.
 Moral Wrongs

Le
Legal Wrongs

One might conclude that they are morally good

commands by God. But if you look deeper at the reason
of why those acts are being prohibited, for example
Thou shall not kill, it is, in itself, the prohibition for us
to not become arrogant. As arrogance will produce
immoral acts.

Moving on to a more non-metaphysical nature, let us

now look at another perspective about morality from the
legal sense through what is termed as legal wrongs and
moral wrongs.
Legal wrongs are acts or behaviours considered as
wrong which allows the wrongdoer to take action against
the perpetrators in the court of law. By category, legal
wrongs are of moral wrongs but heavier in the reception
on conducts allowed within a society.
Whereas, moral wrongs are wrongs that fall outside
the scope of legal wrongs and carry non-legal
punishment. Thus, an act of not helping an old woman
cross the road would be tantamount to breaching the
moral wrong, while the act of making a woman fear for
her life by driving recklessly to hasten her in crossing the
street will be considered as legal wrong; an assault. In
both situations, the standard would be on the basis of
arrogance while acting out these actions. Both the
examples above contain arrogance, though different in
degree.
There are those who say that the standard of morality
is to be determined by the cultural makeup in which they
are assigned to (e.g. eating cats by Vietnamese). Some
even go further by saying that it is their right to do
whatever they like, standards are merely self-determined
where morality are relative to what their society are
accustomed to or choose to adopt (e.g. free sexual
relationships in the United States). There are those who
says that their conducts originate from traditional
customs and practises, for example, in an extreme
instance, cannibalism. They just accept it as is because it
has been practised in their society traditionally, even
though this practise is considered barbaric or inhumane
to the rest of the world.
Using arrogance as the rational mind yardstick on
morality, may be the objective morality solution that we
are looking for. Since arrogance is a communality of
human behaviour across the world, moral objectivity is
therefore possible. The level of arrogance is the level of
moral standards to that society in question. The standards
are to be made by those reasonable men within the
society. Eating someones flesh would not be an
acceptable standard because eating human flesh is
downright arrogant (dont you have anything else to
eat?). Cannibalism which kills someone for showing
authority, or simply for fun or for rituals would be
arrogant, thus, a wrongful act. One would say if it is done
under the pretext of rituals (Endocannibalism) it might
therefore be allowed. But anyone in todays scientific
knowledge should recognise that such practises invite
negative medical implications. Because of that, going
against such knowledge and continue to practise
cannibalism for ritualistic reasons would be an arrogant
act, this again is wrong. Such cases would be determined
by others based on the arrogance level of these people
who assert to act out such conducts.
By using arrogance test is a way forward to
determine moral standards. This is done by deducing
evidence to support such claims, thus enabling the
provisions of punishments to be imposed either by
legal punishment, moral punishment or both.
Humility is the notion of self-respect which prevails
in all of us irrespective of how we perceive of an issue.
There should not be arrogance in ourselves otherwise we
will end up doing immoral acts. This floodgate of
problems would never end unless we acknowledge the
value of both arrogance and humility.

Free will
Free will is it real? Are we really free to do what
we want? In order to answer this, we first have to look at
what is free will. Free will is the ability for a person to
have the freedom of choice, the capacity to control their
own actions without being forced or pressured into doing
something else without their consent. As John Lock said,
in his book, An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding, It is not the question of whether the will
be free, but whether a man be free. A person is only free
when given the opportunity of choosing whatever course
of action from all alternatives that is available for him to
take.
Free will comes from the concept of will which is
the ability to select or determine a particular desire by a
person in doing something which his heart wishes. Will
itself is related to desire and choice. We humans have so
many desires, an unlimited amount of desires. We want
to do lots of things, in fact, they are too many limitless
things that we wish to choose. Ask yourself about your
secret wish list and you will be surprised of the nature of
things that you wish can be acted out. A person might
desire to have 1,000 women as his partners because he
has heard that previous emperors and kings have had
such a number of concubines. Our wish and will are
indeed limitless to our thinking capabilities, but that does
not mean that we are able to achieve them. It has its own
in-built control mechanism; our rational mind. The
ability to reason about the behaviour, whether its of
arrogance or not, and those which should be based on
humility. Thus, I summarise them as follows:
1. (Will) + (mental illness/incapacity) = free will >
unlimited choice > unlimited actions > no
punishment
 2. (Will) + (knowledge + humility) = no free will >
limited choice > limited actions > reward >
happiness
3. (Will) + (knowledge + arrogance) = free will >
unlimited choice > unlimited actions >
punishment > unhappiness
On the above first point, a person who is a minor or
suffering from mental illness has the free will to do
anything he wants or desires. Look at any unsound mind
person, of what they are capable of doing, and how the
society treats them for their conducts. Have you seen any
insane person lately? Well, in my country, they roam the
earth and are free as any animal can be. Sometimes, they
would be picked up by authorities for the sake of their
own safety. They dont eat and bathe, nor are they
properly dressed, and my God what a smell. They have
unlimited choices and unlimited actions depending on
their capabilities. Law is kind to them mainly because
they cant control their actions. As for minors, they are
the group members of societies that are also able to do
what they want because they have free will. A minor can
do what they want, whenever they want, as this is due to
the incapacity of their mental state. They can do their
business in public without any repercussions by anyone
because they are simply kids. This mental state of mind
also goes for crimes by anyone suffering from mental
illness or minors because in the eyes of the law, they are
too mentally incapacitated to be responsible for their
actions and they will be protected by the law. Standards
of arrogance and humility cannot be used against them
as they are unable to know what is right or wrong,
morally or legally.
For item nos. 2 & 3 above, God gave us the test
which involves our choice and rational mind to act. It is
a fact that we all have a will, but because we are to be
humble and not arrogant, the will becomes restricted,
thus, making us unable to have free will. How can
someone have free will when he could rationalise about
the need to behave in a certain manner (humility)? I
usually ask my students if there is the possibility for them
to kill anyone they like and the law of killing is
completely abolished and no law can punish them for
doing so, would they kill? Some of them immediately
answered yes. They have someone in mind that they
certainly would like to kill. Question is, would they
really carry it out? They answered yes. Seriously? Yes,
they again replied. Later in discussing the effects of such
an act, they realised the possibility of retaliation by the
family of those they had supposedly killed because
justice will take its course, whereby, if one can kill
another then that does not stop them from killing you.
Dont you think so? Any rational person would easily
agree to this. This acknowledgement and rationality, in
addition to the acknowledgement on the possibility of
total chaos in the society, stops them from having that
will. God is surely fair. Any simple person anywhere
could have easily differentiated between conducts of
arrogance or not. If they think hard enough. It does not
take a scientist to be able to tell them that. It is basically
common sense. Here we see again that our common
sense is based on our rational mind, if indeed we are
rational people then there would certainly not be free
will.
Choices that come about with free will are never
going to be fair. How can a person be forced to choose
when he could not independently determine what he
wants based on what God had already determined of
what we should or shouldnt do? Since God had created
a test for all of us, He must ensure that the candidates to
the test are given the will of choice to act. It is finally our
own choice to decide and determine where we will end
up as we come out of the test.
Free will is for those who are arrogant. They dont
want to be restricted on their choices of desires whenever
they want to act on something. Free will is, therefore, the
freedom of choices. It is the power or right to act upon
their wants without hindrance or restraints by others.
This ability to absolutely choose anything that one
wishes is simply irresistible. But by having the freedom
of choice, would it not mean that the person isnt able to
make the correct and right choice because of the
unlimited desires that are open to him to act, making it
difficult for a proper choice to be made for the intended
outcome of an act? Imagine in a test where one is able to
freely write about anything other than the scope of area
in which he is sitting for? Can that ensure passing the test
by impressing the examiner regarding the ability to do
something other than what is asked for? Surely not. Can
a person who has free will make a choice of taking
someone elses life through suicide bombing so that he
could please God by his act? Surely not. Because that
would certainly be an act of arrogance.
In addition, how can there be a test without having
fairness in that test? Any test, even without free will, can
be just if the outcome is just; provided that those being
tested are given ample will and choices unless they have
no consciousness at all (a crazy person have no
consciousness). They should be allowed to choose and
make decisions and act upon their choices. The choice is
an objective one where the result of it would either be
right or wrong, good or bad. In order to ensure that the
outcome is right, the person must be able to differentiate
between arrogance and humility. Take for example a
rapist, he can choose to rape or not to rape, he cannot
argue that his act is based on some physical or mental
handicap, therefore, justified to be excused, as if to say
that he never had the intention to rape. Any defence
lawyer of a rapist has surely seen this argument before.
It starts with his arrogance in committing the crime. The
free will to freely choose who the victims will be and
freely do any act of physical abuse without ever
considering the effects of his act to himself, the victims,
their family and the society at large. Never thinking that
he also has a mother, sister, wife and daughter that
someone else who thinks like him regarding freedom
may similarly act towards his own loved ones. How
arrogant can a man be?
When humans are allowed to have free will then it is
what we are seeing nowadays in our societies. Because
free will brings out the arrogance of thinking that it is our
right to do anything we like as it is of our fundamental
rights, whereas, they are not, and they are against the will
of God. There are over 290,000 cases of rape and sexual
assault annually (one rape for every 100 seconds) and the
worst is that 98% of these rapist will walk free according
to RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network).
Yes, they might be free on this earth but not in the next
for their arrogance towards God.

Choice
In one of Dr. Zakir Naiks lecture sessions, there was
a questions asked which went something like this: Why
is God being sadistic where he knew that in the end,
some of us humans will go to hell and some will go to
heaven? Why did He create that? Is it not sadistic of Him
to do that? My answer would be that we humans, have
previously admitted that God is our Lord and Creator and
hence in order to test our sincerity of such statement,
God have placed us on earth to undergo this test of faith,
to be in full humility by submitting ourselves to Him thus
testifying the statement made, that He is indeed our Lord
and Creator. To be able to prove our love and respect
towards Him, we shall try to withstand the element of
arrogance that was put in us and will always be humble
towards Him by submitting ourselves to all His rules and
commandments.
Indeed, He didnt have to create this universe
knowing that in the end there are those who are going to
go against Him. But we opted for the test to prove that
we did acknowledge His Majestic nature and promised
that we will submit to His command by not being
arrogant. He knew who is right and wrong. He knew the
outcome of the test but we humans are allowed to prove
ourselves by repenting and not losing hope of His
forgiveness but to keep struggling our fight against
arrogance. All these is merely to show how Majestic He
is and He wants His creation to acknowledge this. What
better way to have this accomplished by creating a test
which He knows that there are going to be those who
pass and those who fail. Humans are given choices and
they make those choices. God is never sadistic. But we
are who are sadistic to ourselves based on our actions on
this earth.
Obviously, He can also create the situation that
every human goes to heaven. But He didnt. It is the
humans willingness to undergo this test by basically
agreeing and eagerly and voluntarily show God that we
are indeed loyal and faithful to our position compared to
other creations. Other creations were asked the same,
whether they are willing, but none dared. How stupid are
we? Now whether we like it or not, there is no choice
anymore. We have to undergo the test. There is nowhere
we could go, nowhere that we could be safe, accept face
the test in order to determine the ability to withstand the
arrogance in us. Whether we are going to end up indeed
arrogant against God or not and by proving otherwise,
we can rightfully justify that we are indeed better than
the other creations of God. Truly victorious.
The only one that has such rights to be arrogant is
God. Because of His majestic nature, He has all the rights
as compared to humans, who are never going to be
Majestic. He is Majestic because He is the ultimate
Creator of all things, compared to humans who can only
create things but never will be able to stand up to the
capabilities of Gods power and strength of creation.
Therefore, all of His creations are to be humble and
totally submit to Him.
He created this universe just to test us. Pretty grand
isnt it? To test whether we are going to go against Him
by being arrogant even though He has given us signs of
His Majestic power for us to ponder and think. Those
who fail to use these capabilities are truly arrogant. He
knows who would go against Him and who would not.
He knows the outcome of everything but He also has
given choices based on the intelligence to not be arrogant
and, thus, pass this test of our own choice.

Justice
Justice is not merely social constructions from
customary agreements. We have to always remind
ourselves, that we are never in a journey which sometime
feels like it is full of frustrations and failures. Even
though someone are able to get away from justice on this
earth, does not mean that justice does not exist. This line
of argument is from those who do not believe in God or
refuse to acknowledge Him. If they are indeed believers
in God, then there would be no issue as there would
surely be an eternal justice for which these transgressors
are unable to run from.
 The problem is for us to determine what is justice,
other than those defined by dictionaries and origins of
words. How do we generalise justice to be a yardstick of
human conduct? So that whenever we apply it for any
given issue, it would be able to stand the test of
application. This is important as a general understanding
of what justice means as it will ensure that everyone is
able to use such standards and adhere to that degree of
test.
Many philosophers had given their interpretation of
what justice is; an interpretation about what moral
virtues that a person is characterised and what would be
the desired qualities of a political society. This is
basically on the level of both micro and macro
perspectives of justice having the same intrinsic values.
Basically, all of them agreed that justice is the most
central of all virtues for individual and societys
wellbeing, as coming from the individual themselves and
not from an external condition, where one or many have
to agree and submit to. This is because individuals are
free and rational entities capable to determine what is
right and what is wrong.
Justice is a state of being fair and just. Giving justice
to those who are being unjustly treated or oppressed by
others is an act of humility that comes from not having
arrogance in oneself. For those who acted wrongly
against others, they go directly against Gods will and
His wishes, as a result, they are arrogant.
Justice should be read and interpreted by using
arrogance and humility to justify what act is right and
what act is wrong. Humility would bring the best out of
a person and it ensures that the results would be the best
possible outcome, even though it might not achieve the
maximum outcome, but it surely would be more
compared to the outcome of arrogance which would
occupy the other extreme end.
The application would again bring it in line with
what God asks us to do. And for those who dont believe
in God, this should also be an ordinary approach as an
acceptable moral code of conduct to measure a behaviour
in an individual or political sphere.

Social Justice
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary,
social justice is about justice in terms of distribution of
wealth, opportunities and privileges within a society.
Thus, social justice is about the attainment of qualities at
the overall societys perspectives; a macro level view
that relates to the policymakers decision as political
decisions that apply to the general members of that
society; a top-down decision approach.
However, under Arrogance Theory, social justice
should be looked at from the micro level, at the lower
level as much as possible. A bottom-up approach is
therefore suggested. Any positive changes in the lower
structure would eventually change the society and
ultimately, the attainment of positive qualities for the
whole society. Changing policies in the top-down
manner would have an immediate impact, but certainly,
would not have a lasting positive effect.
 The problems relating to social justice on how to
distribute justice to the general public, may best be
tackled by looking at the opposite of what is just; the
unjust. This is because injustice is more obvious as
compared to justice and less likely to have multi
interpretations or arguments. For example, not
distributing wealth at all as compared to making some
distributions by comparison is the greater form of
injustice, thus any person looking at a given society
would be able to use arrogance as the guiding principle
to justify the inequalities that occur within a society,
class or groups on how they are being administered.
In a society where imbalances occur, there is a great
chance that such social inequalities originate from the
arrogance of the leaders of such entities, they need to
adopt a ratification formula which is fair and just in
creating balance for the society. Such failure to remove
imbalances is therefore unacceptable nor valid for breach
of duty. The members of such society should
immediately recognise such arrogance of their leaders
and not become arrogant themselves, to counter such
behaviour and change such arrogant leaders in a non-
arrogant manner.
Taking Apartheid of South Africa as an example of
a former social system of oppression on the political and
economic rights of the blacks, might initially arise from
some valid need to control and govern in order to
establishing rights by the minority white, but from the
moment the rules and regulation starts to developed into
an oppressive and manipulative manner, giving
advantages to one side as compared to another, is truly
arrogant. This should not be condoned anymore by the
members of that society. If the members wilfully fail to
remove such injustice, then they are themselves arrogant.
As people who are arrogant will continue with their
arrogance, this will go on until they reach a point where
they feel that it is their right to do such things. As a result,
an external pressure is to be imposed towards unjust
situations. This pressure should be in a manner that is
also not arrogant, otherwise, the society will generally
suffer from the consequence of arrogance, and civil war
may be the resulting consequence.
Take the instances of all crimes or injustices that
occur all over the world (from any era). At its core would
be the arrogance of mankind. They might start off with
humility for a noble and just purpose but eventually, if
unchecked, it would turn into arrogance. It is because we,
as mere humans, have the tendency to make mistakes;
but repeated mistakes will invoke the arrogance in us,
which will put into effect the test of arrogance.
This social justice is dynamic and fluid as we could
never have a standard method to use for all situations or
issues, but we can surely use arrogance to be the guiding
light for making the right decision where its true colours
can be easily recognised by an outsider; either arrogance
or humility.

Moral Justice
Moral justice is what regulates moral wrongs which
are not within the purview of legal wrongs but would
have a more important and higher significant value as it
actually makes the society strong. Because legal justice
focuses on matters concerning legal wrongs which can
be easily identified by looking at the evidence offered,
moral wrongs are not as serious as legal wrongs,
therefore, it should be approached in a slightly different
manner because of its elusive nature.
Having laws means a proper administration of
justice is easier to be administered. But since moral
justice has no laws, the benchmark has to be based on
individual standards. Because individual attitudes differ,
it is also difficult to determine common standards that
reflect the general public view of what is right and what
is wrong.
For example, concerning morality, which was
discussed earlier, the main task to determine what is
morally just must be based on the determination of
whether the act in question passes the arrogance test or
not. Again, it would be a matter of evidence which will
eventually balance the truth based on whether a person
is arrogant or not. This fluidity of application is best
because the main task is to look at the level of arrogance
of the actor. Any response to justify what is morally
arrogant is wrong by the standards of universality.
For example, a doctor who is on his way back from
his clinic saw an accident but refused to stop and help
out, mainly because he is too tired, wouldnt care less or
such activity would take up his precious time or not able
to bring any monetary return, is against his Hippocratic
Oath pledge. That would indeed be seen as arrogance.
But if he was en route to meet his client who is also in a
critical condition then it would not be arrogant, provided
that he first weighed the conditions of both regarding
who is more critical than the other. In the end, God
would see whether the doctor is indeed arrogant based
on the circumstances of such an incident. This goes to all
other professions be it professional or not.

Legal Justice
All states regularly institute what they see as just
laws for the welfare of its society. Hence the creation of
tax, levies, duties, tariff, regulations and laws are those
of legal justice. It is the duty of the legal makers of the
state to pass these rules, believed to be able to achieve
the aspiration of their country depending on the policy
being promoted by the administrators of such country.
Nevertheless, in passing any kind of rule or amend
and repeal all unjust laws, members of the society cannot
be subjected to continuous negative effect of those rules
and must therefore be avoided or removed. Every single
action on any rule must be made with humility and
without arrogance.
Laws must be created for the betterment of the
society without having any secret agenda behind them.
In countries where the administrators who also happens
to be the legal makers, issues of conflicts of interest is
rampant. Many regimes of oppressions sprang up all
over the world which claims that their laws portrays
peace and justice, but instead are full of bias and of
arrogance. Legal justice is a mere facade.
 Therefore, law makers must be individually
answerable towards their official duties. This duties
continue to exist while they are in office irrespective
towards those who appointed them into office or not.
They are not to be arrogant and always be humble in
administrating their responsibilities.

Court of Justice
Court system concern itself with social justice where
it focuses on the practises of the courts in administering
justice. Legal justice of the courts is mostly about
procedure related matters, like evidence and documents,
used by the courts in giving out judgement or rulings on
matters related to validity of the law.
As the justice system upholds the rule of law, it
specifically cover all legal wrongs where the courts
would normally have legal jurisdictions to hear cases. It
does not however cover moral justice in any way unless
and until it would be brought through the courts, in the
form of a case based on the available provisions of the
law. Then it would be judged to determine who is right
and who is wrong (win or lose).
Therefore, the courts must be able to be directly
accountable for delivering correct decisions in-line with
Gods rule. The method and arguments used by the
courts must reflect the notion of humbleness and not of
arrogance. Without these, truth could not triumph.
Courts must act without fear or favour for ensuring that
their humbleness would be approved by God.
 This objective goes directly to the role of judges as
justice givers. In delivering their judgements, judges
are bound to certain principles of law to ensure
uniformity and structure so that the general public would
be able to have confidence in the justice system. But if it
fails in delivering that, the whole justice system might be
in jeopardy due to the reduced confidence of the public
towards their opinions and decisions.
As a result, judges have moral and legal obligations
to the society as a whole, similar to those who run
governments. Moreover, I would say that they occupy a
much higher responsibility as they are the ones who have
to uphold the monitoring of the executive and legislative
branches from the misuse of powers. Failing to
administer their task with outmost integrity and honesty
will result in them answering to God. This is because the
nature of judges, as justice givers, have a direct impact
to those they judge. The lives of the wrongdoer and those
who depend on the wrongdoer in terms of physical,
spiritual and financial support would also be effected. A
negative act of a government would certainly have a
direct effect towards the society they rule, but failing to
rectify such injustice by the courts would have a
prolonged effect of injustice; especially when the society
is left with no other means of seeking rectification from
such unjust practices.

Crime
Crimes are all about arrogance. Whenever a crime is
committed, arrogance is with it. People do not commit
crimes if they have humility in them, but they will
certainly commit such crimes whenever they are
arrogant. Humility would actually prevent a person from
committing crimes, as they respect others since
humbleness makes a person acknowledge universal
rights of others. They are also able to acknowledge
Gods command in respecting others and not have any
arrogance in them. In a combat situation, when a soldier
is about to kill his enemy but the enemy surrenders, the
soldier must not allow arrogance to take over. He cannot
allow hatred and anger towards his enemy and must be
able to control mentally or spiritually with humility.
Respect God by acknowledging that He is the one we
have to adhere to. If a person acknowledges that
arrogance is for God alone, then he would easily control
such a situation and establish the rights of others without
any problems because he is using mental control over his
heart. This goes to any type of crime everywhere in the
world.
This condition of choosing to respect God and
therefore others, will prevent arrogance from occurring
prior to the commission of crime. Like the above
example, anger is of arrogance, which will certainly
allow a person to commit further arrogant actions (abuse,
hurt or killing), thus can only be defeated by humility.
To do this, the person must be able to control himself.
This is certainly quite difficult to achieve because
arrogance and humility will constantly rival each other,
affecting all of his actions. Especially when there is
already arrogance in that person, as it will greatly
increase the chance towards further arrogance. However,
there is always an open opportunity for him to choose
humility thus ending the commission of such crime or
avoid the potential crime from taking place.
In all criminal offences, upon detailed investigation
or research, they would reveal the state of the condition
of the criminal mind at the point of the offence. It will
show the arrogance level of the wrongdoer. The more
arrogant the criminal is, the higher the level of crime he
is willing to commit. It normally starts at the lower level,
but progresses upwards. Only he alone can stop this
progression through humility.
A sentence of imprisonment might be able to
condition a person by bringing him back to the level of
humility and removing that arrogant state of mind. But if
imprisonment cannot achieve such an outcome, then a
greater punishment must be made on those criminals
such as increased physical punishment or increased jail
sentences. However, if the arrogance level is too high
where it involve act of killing, then the punishment of
death (corporal punishment) is the only way of
retribution for that person and the society. If not, this
behaviour of arrogance might have a tendency to inflict
others into committing similar crimes. It might be the
victims, their relatives or other criminals who may take
heed of such a crime and act out on it. Bringing down the
level of arrogance is crucial for mankind because it is in
us. It can only be reduced and eliminated through the
process of repentance (humility), making the person
come to terms and acknowledge the rights of others as
well as respecting others as fellow humans.
As crime and arrogance are in tandem, it will
actually increase over time with the level of arrogance
that is built in them. A person would do petty crimes and
move further up the ladder to a higher, more heinous
crimes. The higher they go up that ladder, the more
arrogant they have become (refer to the diagram above,
the incremental slope). That is why they are able to
commit higher crimes. The highest level of arrogance
would not be the crime of murder, but claiming oneself
as God.
What I am asking is to simply look at all the crimes
which occurs around the world and ascertain that they
are not of arrogance. You will be surprised. This
disruptive behaviour is addictive and one would easily
be lost to such actions, and may believe that such acts are
justified in some way or other. War crimes and war itself
are crimes of the arrogant nature. Countries that go to
war are only justified when they want to defend
themselves against attacks from others.
Pre-emptive acts would be an arrogant method of
justifying self-defence. No court of law would allow
such acts for individuals to make unless it falls under
self-defence. Countries that go to war will always go to
war, and they love doing so since the arrogance drive is
addictive; especially when there is no resistance from the
victims. Take a husband who beats his wife. He would
continue to do so because of his arrogance and the
addictiveness of feeling such superiority of strength.
This will enable him to continue the abuse until that wife
either commits suicide, runs away or ends up getting
killed or the wife might instead retaliate thus hurting or
killing the husband.

Civil wrongs
There are hundreds of millions of civil cases in the
world today. All of those cases are about failure to do
what they promise or are supposed to do because they
are simply arrogant, be it in the law of court, contract,
family, agency, company, etc.
If only we have humility then all the problems of the
world, in terms of civil wrongs, could be overcome; but
indeed, this is not happening because we allow arrogance
to take place. Look at all the civil wrongs that you know
of and ponder upon the arrogance level they have. The
same degree that occurs in the criminal acts repeats itself
in all civil cases, where the disputing parties who want
to uphold their rights and those who arrogantly ignore
the truth are battling each other.
No doubt that there will be situations involving
disputes between parties that are non-arrogant in nature,
where they are simply disputes of technicality. In this
position, if it is so clear that there is no wrongdoing, they
should not be arrogant by not amicably resolving it
instead of using the normal court systems. This is
because their transactions would eventually impact
others, who are either directly or indirectly connected or
relying on them to resolve the issue as soon as possible.
In this light, perhaps through an alternative dispute
resolution systems, like mediations, conciliations and
arbitrations could be a good humble solution. Therefore
letting the court systems handle more pressing and
serious issues would be best way of utilising our
taxpayers money.

Equality
Many philosophers dont agree with the clear
definition of equality. However, Stanfords online
defines equality as Correspondence between a group of
different objects, persons, processes or circumstances
that have the same qualities in at least one respect, but
not all respects. Equality is often associated with having
a close connection with morality and justice, plus at the
same time, with how we are to distribute justice equally
to all humans (distributive justice).
Being equal towards all parties does not mean
equality. Not ensuring equality to our fellow humans and
everything else means we are arrogant. With arrogance
inside us, there is no chance for equality to be promoted
as the universal standard. Every society has its own
standard of what equality means. Some countries act
using certain formulas to run their country in a certain
manner, which to them, is justified. But that is not so for
those looking from the outside.
A nation that applies the system of affirmative action
might have its own justifications based on certain
philosophical views (but to others, they are just a racist
system of government). One of their defence might be by
arguing that the minority in that country are to be
defended economically as they are less superior to other
groups. In order to justify whether the country should not
apply such a notion would make them arrogant, thus,
they do not give equality towards all citizens,
irrespective of their backgrounds. It is a constant struggle
but must be justified, otherwise, equality would not be
served.
By using arrogance and humility as a yardstick, we
would be able to formulate the universal view on
equality. I do agree that it is very difficult for us to
measure both elements, but there are available evidences
that could be produced in proving arrogance which can
in turn, help to support arguments and justify situations;
whether fairness and equality has been attained.

Egoism
Egoism would be one of the worst condition of
arrogance where a self-praised individuals who
condition himself to be arrogant over others. Having
self-interest by thinking that he is of better standing than
the rest is of ripe condition to be capable of doing
evil things like crime towards others.
If we were to say that people are motivated by their
own interests and desires, and they cannot be described
otherwise, then it would not be arrogant. This is because
our human nature, is to do things for our self-interests
and own desires, but not in an egoistic manner. Human
free-will that was given to us by God is to act in the
proper manner by using humility and avoiding arrogance
in all our conducts by not being egoistic.
Altruism
Altruism exist in all animals, including man, but
man has extra things where they have psychological
egoism that animals dont.
Altruism is the opposite of egoism; the principle or
practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others.
Altruism in man is however covered with selfish attitude
plus arrogance, which makes us unable to see the truth
of what our actual purpose on this earth really is, to be
humble. As human beings we are to serve God, in full
humility by conducting good manners towards other
humans. Enhancing altruism by being humble and
constantly thinking of ways to help others would
progressively defy the level of arrogance in us.

Animal Cruelty
Although animals are inferior to us, they do certainly
have rights. It is our responsibility to take good care of
them, especially for those who are directly associated
with them in breeding, produce, farming, transportation,
production of meat and goods, as well as, affections
(pets). Failure to take care of them is arrogance towards
the acknowledgement of animal contribution and
benefits that they bring to us; whether directly or
indirectly. Thomas Aquinas did mention the existence of
animals as lesser beings than humans, therefore, we are
able to utilise them for our benefit; but I guess he should
go further to mention the rights of animals to be treated
with dignity and respect. We can see how humans treat
animals with such cruelty in laboratory tests for science
or product testing, over-loading them with stress when
using them for transportation and many other instances.
Ask any animal activist and they will give you numerous
examples of animal cruelty. All this has to stop. We have
to acknowledge that they do have consciousness, so
whatever our actions are in relation to them must be of
humility and not arrogance.

Environmental Ethics
Environmental ethics is a newly discussed area due
to the severe negative impacts of human activities
concerning the environment as a result of technology,
industry, economic progress and population growth. It
became a topic of discussion based on mankinds
destructive nature towards the worlds ecosystem, with
mankinds excitement for development and progress.
It is basically about the humans own ethical
relationship with the natural environment caused by the
widespread use of negative activities or negative impacts
that threaten the public health and facilitate the
destruction of wildlife. The destruction of the world that
we are witnessing now is basically founded on the
arrogance of man, not acknowledging the importance of
the environment or seeing that their destructive actions
are causing the burden of cleaning up, along with having
others to face the negative effects linked to pollution
such as reduced resistance, sickness, disease and even
death.
 If only we are to adopt arrogance as the guide for
identifying and rectifying the cause of pollutants, we
would be able to resolve this issue. If every one of us is
able to identify for ourselves our own actions, whether
they are done in arrogance or not, then we would perhaps
make a drastic change to our environment. The
environmental awareness of the western society is akin
to the lesser level of arrogance or humility as compared
to the eastern countries, where most of them adopts the
couldnt care less attitude because they justify that
since everyone is doing it, then why not they do the
same, or since we are fighting a failing battle, if you cant
beat them, join them. This accelerate the destruction
because of our disrespect towards the environment.
Since we never want to respect the environment, failure
to acknowledge this would surely bring disastrous
effects, not just to the environment, but to all of mankind
and animals alike.

World Economy
Our survival relies on the ability to conduct
transactions with others to satisfy our needs. People cant
satisfy their needs without having some interaction of
some kind with others who might be doing something for
them, from somewhere in the world. It is the reality of
life today.
If countries of the world see that the economy is a
method for self-enrichment, then we are like any
individual who is selfish in nature; thus, arrogant. Just by
being a great nation of economic strength, we look down
on other countries and justify our view by claiming that
the strength we have is by the virtue of hard work and
pain of the citizens. Thats arrogant. Strength never
comes from specific support, it comes from everywhere
as we are interconnected. We need to support each other
to ensure that our neighbouring countries also prosper,
or that eventually, all countries prosper equally. That
would be just for us to do so, otherwise, we are indeed
arrogant. Taking advantage of others is arrogant. We will
never see the light of peace and justice.
We have seen groups and countries enriching
themselves by suppressing trade negotiations that are, by
nature, unjust. Yes, one might easily defend by saying
that it is our right, any country in that position would do
the same. This is ridiculously wrong. They are advancing
arrogance in their argument rather than humility
towards fellow human beings. There is no difference
between them and those cannibals who kill others to eat
for whatever reason (justified killings they cry) just
because they can kill. Suppressing another is arrogance,
and against Gods will.

World System Theory

In the world system theory, concerning globalised
and worldwide inter-connections of economic activities,
we observe that one branch of the world dominates the
other; in terms of labour and natural resources. This is an
ongoing injustice towards mankind. Because the rich
countries are using their strategic economic position to
indirectly suppress the poor countries into controlling
their natural resources and labour supplies for the benefit
of their own selfishness. As long as rich humans or in the
macro-scale, rich countries, manipulate such conditions,
they are arrogant. As long as this prevails, there will
never be peace in this world. It is because nations are
always arrogant. Capitalism has somehow changed our
sense of purpose.
The problem of human nature is hunger and basic
needs. It is a condition that blocks human progress.
Living in poverty conditions where the basic needs of
life almost ceases to exist is tough, especially when they
abundantly exist in countries that are rich themselves.
With such depraving conditions prevailing and
flourishing, the mind cant be formed into helping others.
One might say they deserve that, but have you been there
and seen how difficult life is? You might say that I
survived because I took the pain and struggle to make
self-change, whereas, the rest had not. That is so
arrogant. God gave you such an opportunity to be able to
look back and help those who are unable to help
themselves.
Of course any country in the same position would
say that it is not their fault that they are rich. It is also
normal to raise logic in their defence; those rich
countries (populations) are like that because of their own
struggle to change themselves. It is unfair if it is to be
taken away from them. It is their right to help or not.
Plus, it also serves them right to be taken advantage of.
Thats normal human instinct. Capitalisms, therefore, is
the only rational way and so it must prevail. However,
surely that undermines the notion of worldly humanity.
Its as if youre looking at a poor man by the road side
and you say to him hey you, you deserve it because you
dont struggle for yourself. If that is not arrogance, I
dont know what is.
One thing that could be fought, against that
condition, is to be able to come to a meeting point so as
to mitigate such imbalances. The solution might be
through using humility to help others to get away from
the basic poverty condition. Rich countries must provide
a helping hand. Enriching your neighbour is better than
having a hungry one. Sooner or later, they will come for
your wealth. It is just a matter of time. Once they satisfy
their hunger and basic needs, then you have to stop since
they are now arrogant if they persist to stay that way. We
cant be helping those who are arrogant themselves. That
is justice and equality of ones inner self. This is the only
world system in the eyes of God.
God gave us such wealth so as not to be arrogant by
saying that it is ours. It never was and never will be.

Science
God can be found through science. His evidences are
clear, and through science, one can reinforce such
existence. That was the main purpose of science, to
acknowledge the Majesty of God, not to reject the
existence of God. Somehow, over time scientific
discovery only looks at the particular subject or object
without encompassing the greater picture. If they are to
look at the bigger picture, then humility will set in.
Therefore, they would increase their faith in God, the
Creator of all things, in this world and the universe.
They fail to give clear answers to things that have
not been proven yet, thus, reducing its non-existence
simply because there is no scientific proof. This is very
dangerous, as well as misleading. Just because science
discovered certain truths about things, it cannot be used
to generalise for everything else by denying those not yet
discovered. Disbelieving everything that cannot be
proven on the basis of evidence alone could lead a person
to become arrogant. Can things like love, kindness,
affection, fear, equality, fairness and justice not exist
because they are not up to the standards of scientific
scrutiny? How about metaphysical matters? Are we to
wait for scientific answers only to accept them as true?
Can we put our very future based on science alone? Can
we jeopardise our position in life and in the afterlife just
because its based on the reality of science and not on
faith and logic? Time, as it is, is running out for every
one of us. Can they, the scientists, help answer for us
regarding our choices that we made in front of God? Are
they willing to sacrifice themselves to our plight?
Especially when the majority of those scientists are those
who dont believe in the afterlife and God. Do we
surrender our eternity status based on what they merely
say and conclude?

Big Bang
The discovery of the Big Bang raised the issue of
why did the event ever take place and for what reason
did it occur? The answer could be found in the Majesty
of His position. The universe was designed and created
by God to merely demonstrate His capabilities, powers
and majestic position that brings about presence and
authority. As we humans constantly need justifications,
what better justification than to exhibit such grandeur by
creating the universe? Due to this position, it is justified
for Him to be arrogant because He can do what He wants,
when He wants to, and that does not cost Him anything
nor does He lose any of His qualities from such actions.
Unlike humans, we are never majestic, whatever we
possess is derived from Him as He is the creator of
everything, the whole universe.
This is the very cause of the creation of the universe.
It shows the cause for the most Powerful, most Majestic
to just show off. He wants to make His existence as clear
as possible so we can remove our doubts about ourselves.
He is making a statement for us humans to acknowledge
and accept His power of authority where He can make
something out of nothing with such perfection. Create
anything He wishes.
Of course, He could have easily opted to not create
the universe at all, but that would mean we wont exist.
We would not be thinking about this since we would not
have existed if He didnt create the universe. The very
existence of the universe is for us to be in awe and ponder
at His every creation. It aims for us to use reason and
logic in our minds, which He delicately created, and gave
us good understanding and the ability to come to terms
with this fact. Our very existence itself already exhibits
His Majestic capabilities, but the universe truly shows
His true majestic powers of creation. Thus, if any one of
us is unable to come to terms and acknowledge such a
fact, then we are indeed from those who are arrogant.
How can such a profound and obvious fact be rejected?
Can we create a big bang ourselves? Can anything in
existence create such an outstanding occurrence? Think.

Time
Laws are everything in the universe. Any scientist
would confirm that. God created laws for a particular
purpose, or for many purposes; otherwise, they would
not be created at all because God does not create things
just for fun, things which do not carry any meaning or
purpose. He is serious in His creations and knows the
purpose of everything in which we are still struggling to
discover.
Time is a law created by God. It exists for the test. A
test must have a duration period of time, otherwise, how
can a test be evaluated if there is no end? Time is created
for us to be able to endure our test with the period of
space given to us so that we are able to find the right path
which leads us to the truth before we face death. Look at
any worldly test undertaken by us, how we struggle to
complete the task given and how we become stressed
whenever the time is about to end. We are not forced to
take them, but we willingly took this test and now we are
to complete it within the time period given. Sadly, for us,
in this world which we are currently undergoing our
individual tests, we were not told of when we are to stop.
It is not fair if everyone knows their death, right? If so,
then there is no need for a test at all. God knows
everything that He does. The end, or as we call it, death,
can come to us so quickly. We already saw people dying
where they had thought that they would live longer.
When is our death? Have you thought about it lately?
Plato, in the earlier parts of The Republic, discussed
the topic of getting old and being more aware of life; how
we become more self-conscious about things in life as
we grow old. He correctly acknowledged that when we
get old, we realise that our time will be up anytime. So
we think more about life. Time limits us from being
arrogant. How many people have been given a second
chance in life, to change their lives to a better one? They
are humbler towards the joys of life and the love that they
have for their loved ones and towards everything
surrounding them. Remember, love is humility. Only
those who are truly humble can truly love.
Everything created has a beginning and an ultimate
end. So does time. It is the creation of God and, therefore,
not permanent. It will reach its limit eventually. How it
will run out is probably with the ultimate destruction of
the universe. We merely coexist temporarily and not
permanently because we die, everything dies (the
universe too) as we are created by God, and God was
never created so He cannot die. Yes, time exists from the
moment of the Big Bang. Time will diminish as it is a
creation. Before time, there is infinity timelessness.
If we are arrogant of time, then it would be a waste
of our test time allocated by God. Humility is for us to be
able to spend every second of our time for the benefit of
mankind and to the whole world in any way possible
since everything is Gods creation and looking after
everything would be an act of humility in the eyes of
God. Even spending time to ensure wellness of others
would be considered as humility, and to go against that
would be portraying arrogance. Those who waste their
time by not doing anything possible to change their lives,
are even more arrogant than those who have money. We
have seen poor people who do not do anything given
their ample time, but arrogantly hoping that others will
help them out constantly. They have abused the time
allocated to them by God and will face the wrath of God
in the afterlife.
Time is, therefore, the timeline of humans to act in
humility and not in arrogance. Time is for them to choose
what is right and what is wrong. No one can help us
determine this except ourselves. This test is within time,
so its simple for anyone to comprehend and act
accordingly.

Evolution
Gods arrogance is shown to us in all of His
creations. It is to show how powerful He is. God can
create something out of nothing because He is arrogant.
The main difference between man and animal is the
existence of the ability to be arrogant, which belongs
only to God. He created us to be the most beautiful
creatures on earth by giving us the power to reason and
insight to think, conclude and make decisions. No other
beings have such capabilities like ours. But this strength
could also be our damnation.
I have to disagree with the evolution theory for the
fact that it undermines God. If indeed God is the most
powerful Creator there is, dont you think that He is able
to create all animals and creation in one instance? We
cant be arrogant by denying that possibility. Though we
have not seen it, surely, looking at ourselves, we can
ponder how can organisms suddenly or over any period
of time, decide by themselves (in cooperation with one
another) to develop each unique part in their body by
themselves? Look at how the whole universe is laid out.
If the universe is so big and great, would creating
animals that merely amount to dirt on earth be so
difficult? Do animals go through such development in
order to justify that He is lame and incapable of such
creations? He can make the evolution, as He is indeed
the Greatest Creator of all things, but does that mean that
everything there is must go through the process of
evolution? Animals purely exist to maintain their
existence by surviving but development is not the core
of their very existence.
Mankind has the mental capacity (metacognition) to
think of what is right and wrong or be arrogant or not,
whereas animals do not. Therefore, look at any animal
behaviour and prove whether they have uniqueness or
not. Those who perish will do so. Theory of evolution is
perhaps true but only to maintain the survival of a type
of species, nothing else. Animals change their habits to
find new sources of food to survive. We find new species
of animals every year, but that does not mean they are
newly created, just recently found. They dont change
forms to do that. They die off and go extinct. Fossils are
left over for us to admire and to be in awe of the greatness
of the Creator; that He is able to create so many creations
that are incomprehensible to man.
You are not your gene. Gene, according to the theory
of evolution, is the engine of evolution itself, but we are
not motivated by our genes, we are motivated by our
goals, altruism and egoism. No development or time can
change that. There are no animals living that equal us in
our capabilities, thus, it is self-explanatory. But surely, if
you want to argue, then the argument will never end.
Evolutionist persist in their goal to make us believe that
we are just by-products of the evolutionary process,
while those who believe in God persist in claiming that
through the logical entity of the rational mind, anyone
can see the truth if they are open to it. Science will never
prove everything that exists, this will forever be from
their arrogance.

World Disasters
In showing His arrogance, He just lays out the things
to happen without His actual intervention. God deserves
recognition. He can intervene if He really wants to
because He is God. But He does not, not because He is
cruel, but because He is fair. The nature in which He
creates will take its own cause of actions. It is for us to
take them as signs and to remind ourselves of our path in
the test that we are in. People always forgot about things
when they are too happy. They forget the world and think
its theirs to take and enjoy. The world is a constant
reminder of His existence. A continuous reminder of our
test. It is for us to be humble and obey what was asked
of us. The only time for fun and happiness would be after
the test. The hereafter is where all good deeds are
rewarded. An eternal life under the blessing of God.

Doubts?
When there is a conflicting answer to a problem,
Occam Razors principle is usually invoked to find the
best answer. If the outcome of a problem, where one
solution is simpler than the other, then it is considered
more reasonable to follow the simpler one rather the
second where there is the need for additional
assumptions to be made in order to find answers.
Arrogance is a simple answer to issues which do not
need assumptions other than evidence. It is a real
reflection of the reality of mankinds raw behaviour. Do
we need to prove otherwise? Do we need further
assumptions? No. Then it is factual.
Evil-doings are from the direct doings of mankind
from their arrogant behaviours.

The Law of Identity

Everything that exists has an identity. One of the
most basic laws in philosophy is the law of identity. It
was formulated in order to establish the existence of
something through the ability to identify something that
is called in question. So if something exists, it has a
nature; an essence. Without establishing identity, there is
no purpose for the discovery of knowledge since there is
no existence. A waste of time. It is simply going along
the fact that whatever exists, it exists in a particular way
which can be identified. That is universal in nature. It
was mentioned by Socrates and Plato, where they stated
that for any proposition A: A = A. This means whatever
is, is.
The proposition of arrogance is what it is;
arrogance, which is identified as a nature of offensive
display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing
pride, feeling superior over others. It is a characteristic
that exists in us humans. There are no others who may
suggest a different meaning. Thus, the identification is
clear and distinguishable. It is also a primitive term
where it is accepted as something that is defined by the
way it is used. A universal term capable of specifically
identifying itself, therefore, it exists. Since it exists in a
specific way, it has no contradictions.

Law of Non-contradiction
Law of Non-contradiction mentioned that 'nothing
can both be and not be.' Arrogance and humility are
surely on opposite poles. They will never be the same.
Arrogance is a condition of self-preservation in the
highest order, whereas humility is a situation where one
lowers his level by himself.
As what was said by Avicenna, "Anyone who denies
the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and
burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same
as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as
not to be burned. How can a person ever deny the truth
by simply saying that they are both the same? That, in
itself, is arrogance.

Faith
Faith is about finding the confidence or trust in God;
especially, to a God that no one has ever seen.
Particularly in a world where there are so many concepts
of God. To make things worse, there are those who dont
even believe in the idea of God at all. How does a person
find out which is true and believe in one concept of God
compared to another, which is unfitting and an incorrect
principle where they had put their trust in? It is surely not
an easy task. As our time is limited on this earth, finding
the true God is going to be a challenge to the heart and
mind.
We cannot merely follow the religion we were born
with without questioning and justifying it ourselves. If
we dont question things, then we are going to be weak
in knowing what our religion is about. We are more
likely to rely on what others think we should do. But
mind you, this is our life and not theirs. Thus, our
ignorance would weaken our faith because our
understanding would also be fragile. That is why people
are always changing religions, because their belief
system is easily shattered by the different types of
arguments put across by those who are with ill intentions.
 But in whichever argument put forward to us, once
our faith is indeed strong, then our rational and open
mind can effortlessly guide and lead us into that
determination; whether we are right or wrong. It is not
about winning or losing the argument. It is about seeking
the truth. But surely, the rational mind alone cannot be
the only tool for us to rationalise our thinking. It also
requires knowledge. Knowledge brings about a deep
understanding. With understanding, we are able to
reinforce our arguments into a solid answer. Relying on
thinking alone would only put us in a trap, a quicksand-
like situation where we are sucked in deeper and deeper
until, eventually, there is no way out. A truly sad
situation for our faith.
By worrying about faith, it will inadvertently
motivate us into protecting it. Some do this by just
ignoring life because life is too deceitful, therefore,
avoiding it is much better. By secluding ourselves with
the intention to avoid possible attacks from outside
arguments would be like claiming surrender and making
a declaration of not believing in God. One should not be
worried if ones faith is indeed strong. No one can force
you into believing something that you dont want to. No
one can change your faith. Period.
Come what may, those with strong faith can face any
argument and tackle it easily and rationally without
stress. It is true that every religion tries to convert others
as their own. It is common sense, but thats solely up to
us of whether we want to be distracted from our faith. No
matter how we cocoon ourselves, the challenge will
come and we have to face it head on. Some religions try
to protect their believers from worldly progress where
they reject any kind of advancement. Who are we to
decide which one is best for others? Dont we have faith
in God? Is our plan better than His plan? Surely, to this
stage of reading, you would now be able to understand
that we are indeed in a test set out by God himself. Then
let us all face the test and not be clouded by those who
worry about others when they dont have the locus to do
so. Faith in God will make us successfully go through
this trial.
We have to develop the thirst for the attainment of
the real meaning of things. You are free to see the world
from your mind and not from others. You can listen and
rationalise before accepting any argument. In order to be
confident, it is your right to question everything. The
problem with faith, I believe, is the problem of not being
able to question things and think. Accepting the face
value of something without ever considering its true
worth is dangerous. We must never be arrogant while
acquiring knowledge, especially about our religion.
Arrogance would only blind us from seeing the truth and
misguide us into something which we never want to be.
We have to be sincere and humble by always asking for
guidance from God so that He would be kind and
merciful in reinforcing our faith. That way, we are able
to attain what we are looking for, Him.
Having faith is, therefore, about finding the truth
which is to acknowledge and come to terms with the
arrogance of God. He has ordained things in the world as
He purposely wants it to be. Faith in God is about faith
that you are not, in any way, to be arrogant in life. Faith
must be coupled with universal and logical reasons. It is
not blindly accepting something given by someone or
from a source. That would definitely be, in itself,
arrogant.

Religion
Religion is the core of both faith and knowledge.
Because with religion, it permits the proper method of
discovery and acknowledgement of the existence of
God; along with what mankind needs to do. It is also a
way for God to inform us of how to behave and respond
to what He wants us to be. Therefore, religion is a
medium between God and humans.
Those who accept that there are more than one God
are plainly arrogant as His omnipotence is prevailing.
Having two or more gods would definitely be a recipe
for disaster. How can the universe have two or more gods
where they might eventually oppose each other in a
power struggle and dispute with each other? This means
that they are both not gods as God is able to exist without
any kind of assistance, support or consensus from others;
otherwise, He would not be supreme, thus, not worth
worshiping at all.
Those who refuse to accept God are lying to
themselves by saying that God can resemble any existing
thing. This is actually being arrogant to their own logical
minds. With open investigation and critical thinking, if
not simple common sense would suffice, God is not
difficult to find. Can God be of something that we can
create with our own hands? If God can be visualised,
then they are not of Gods qualities as how can a supreme
power be deduced to a mere figure? Any creation is
never able to represent God at all since He is supreme.
Those who say God has human qualities are arrogant
because saying that would mean He is not unique and
does not have ultimate power. Only He owns arrogance
and He protects His arrogance by being unique. He gave
us religion and scriptures to guide us on what we need to
do, which is about us eventually recognising that He is
Majestic, thus, arrogant, and He alone can be that.

Afterlife
In every test, there are results; either agony or
celebrations will accompany it. If one fails because of
their arrogance, then the agony will come with it. The
day where Gods wrath will be clearly seen will be the
day where all results will be given and justice will be
served for every single thing that had taken place;
whether its human behaviour on everything that was
committed or every occurrence in this world.
That is also the day where those who had passed the
test by showing their humility will be glorified as being
true to God. Even though they had not seen Him on earth,
on that day, they will be overjoyed with his presence.
For those who were arrogant, they will receive their
punishment for their arrogant actions. On the day of
judgement, they will surely try to seek a second chance
at the test, but they will definitely be denied by God.
Because the test is once, and if there are others, then it
would undermine those who passed it the first time since
there is a chance of those who repeat to obtain higher or
better results than them. Even if their minds are to be
cleansed so that they will undergo the test like before,
they would fail as their nature will always remain the
same, arrogant.
Justice, on that day, would be the most profound
event in mankinds history of existence; where every one
of us will receive our final justice based on our level of
arrogance and humility towards God. Whether we have
acted as what God had asked us to do or otherwise. We
would then be able to see the fairness and equality thats
never ever seen before.

****
This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt,
to those who fear Allah.

Al Quran 2:2

A Book which We have sent down to you, full of

blessings that they may ponder over its verses, and that
man of understanding may take heed.

Al Quran 38:29
Revelations
 If we were to use the measure of arrogance and
humility, we could maintain our environment, humanity
and the world we live in. To cause damage without
justification is from arrogance. We have to be humble in
our life style to help change the world. But in order for
us to do that, we have to know how to behave, so we need
guidance to be able to execute the test and the best way
would be from His own words, His revelations.
Religion is nothing without the main religious
scriptures which contain not only His words, but the
words of the prophets, who are rightly guided. Through
revelations, mankind is able to know and justify the
existence of God, along with what we should do in every
aspect of our lives. It is our main guidance, our only
constitution in life. Looking at revelations would be the
only way for us to guide ourselves into finding the truth,
reinforcing our faith, believing the things that we cant
see and most important of all, discovering what God
wants us to do.
And if we do believe in religion, the word justice
would lead us in our quest of finding the best religion
there is. One that can uphold the best justice system.
What is considered to be the most accurate manifestation
of what good and evil really is. This is because religion
is the most systematic method of evaluating truth. Steven
Covey wrote in his book, The 7 Habits of Highly
Effective Families, where he conducted surveys in his
talks by asking his audiences to close their eyes and point
their hands towards the north direction. When later asked
to open their eyes they (the audiences) realised that there
are various directions of north. Amazing. Leaving the
answer to everyone to decide which one is the truth
would indeed lead to anarchy.
God didnt mislead us by creating confusions, but
instead, He guides us to the correct path. He has given us
choices to accept or to reject. As in any kind of test, the
subjects are usually allowed to do tasks according to the
test requirements because they are the ones who are
being tested. This test is given to us humans and to no
one else, not the earth, nor the animals, not even the
angels. It is up to us, our choice. He has given us the
faculty of mind to be able to think and rationalise. He has
also given us knowledge through scientific research with
the assistance of technology so that we can pursue and
discover the truth. The best part is that most of the
knowledge has already been laid out in the scriptures as
guidance to reason with us about the reality of the
universe, and all we have to do is try to discover them.
We are to guide our brains to come to terms with
reality. God bestowed this as an additional gift to us by
way of scriptures as further guidance, as hints within the
test. I sometimes give test hints to my students in the
form of loud statements to ensure fairness to all students
when I see that they are all stuck on certain issues within
the questions. The same with scriptures I guess, its
Gods way of giving information and proving to us about
the existence of this test and its criteria. He declares that
He exists, Majestic over His reign. Using logic and
rationality, mankind would be able to use these senses
He created for us to be able to get to know Him. By
looking all around us, we are able to rationalise that God
exists. But through scriptures, we are able to get closer
into acknowledging Him, His Majestic powers and,
ultimately, submit to Him.
God had sent His revelations to help mankind think
and see more clearly. He challenges us to deny His
existence. If we are not arrogant, we would be able to see
His existence. Through scriptures, God literally tells us
about the existence of the Test that we are in (the Test of
Life). He had also given us the crucial information
needed to know how we are to successfully complete the
Test; by not being arrogant. As I have already stated, it
is simple yet difficult to attain and sustain if you are not
strong enough to hold on. There will be all kinds of
tribulations which life throws at you. We have to
constantly remind ourselves to be humble, to have
humility at all times, which many of us tend to forget.
It is also our nature to forget what we are supposed
to do. People across time had forgotten their purpose in
life. They have strayed from the correct path. Revelation
is evidence of Gods mercy to mankind so that we dont
forget. It was given as a means of salvation. A method of
reverting people back to the correct path. A guidance. A
source that is important for undertaking the test. Many
have rejected it by ignoring the advices given.
There are those who reject revelation and its
authenticities, therefore, they are indeed arrogant. They
rejected and will always keep on rejecting the Majesty of
God by denying the revelations by saying that they are
not from God. In the scriptures we were told of stories of
the societies and civilisations that were destroyed
because of their arrogance of not accepting the reminders
from the scriptures. It is a constant reminder to future
humans that we should never choose that way or else
well face the same consequences.
Well, we all have the right to decide. Its a freedom
of rights given to everyone in this universe; to accept or
reject. But by rejecting the revelation, then its an act of
utmost arrogance that man can associate with. The
essence of life is all about being humble and not
arrogant. However, if one is willing to think, then one
cannot run away from the mere fact that revelation is
about goodness. It is about not being arrogant to
yourself, towards one another, towards the environment
and, most importantly, towards God.
We cant ignore life. There is no simple way out. We
just cant avoid this test. There is nowhere we could go
to run away from it. We could try to go live in another
earth, planet or in spaceships, but surely, the test is the
same. No matter where we live, we have to endure this
test. Revelations are guides on the subject of what
amounts to humility and arrogance. Revelations are hints
given in the test, Gods kindness to mankind. Therefore,
revelations are the only best way for us to find out the
truth without compromising logic and rationality.
As the test is for everyone, no one is excluded, with
the exception to those who are not brought within the
scope of the test. God is fair to everyone. Though the
types of tests that we go through differ from one person
to another, the quantum of the test imposed on each of us
is thus basically the same. One person might be suffering
from cancer while the other is suffering pain of
something else. Even being rich can be a pain; it can be
a prolonged pain of sadness and unhappiness that could
be easily equalised to someone elses pain.
He has given thousands of hints through scriptures
to so many of His chosen ones (prophets) to help us go
through this test. Open up any scripture and you will be
surprised about the arrogance of humans and their
humility, which are polar opposites. It is up to us to
follow these scriptures, or be arrogant by not following
them. The choice is ours to make. Thus, the single most
important choice for those who believe is to find out for
themselves which religion truthfully portrays humility
and arrogance. All religions talk about humility and
arrogance, but which one is the closest to the truth
regarding the two? For the worst possible arrogance
would be the arrogance of claiming God is in some
physical form or misleading others from Gods true
nature by stating that He is something He never was or
is. This particular arrogance will never be forgiven at all
by God. May He protect us from this highest level of
arrogance where, indeed, there will be no more salvation
or forgiveness.
Revelations are, therefore, a method for us to have
proper guidance so as to be humble and understand what
true arrogance is, and how God portrays His Arrogance
through His Majestic nature. Scriptures are for us to learn
how to avoid arrogance. It should be determined whether
the scriptures are really genuine or not. It should be just
like how we try to determine certain products
authenticity (for example, raw honey) by conducting
simple tests to determine whether they are fake or not.
Bottom line is, we have to determine our end for
ourselves.

****
I know that I know nothing

Plato, Apology
 Conclusion
Gods blessing is what matters for all of us in passing
the test. We need to do more in life and try to obtain His
full guidance to bring us to the truth. May we all acquire
His blessings in this life and may His mercy be upon us
in bringing us back towards the correct path and
maintaining it till we die. Because at the end of the day,
we are nothing we came from nothing, have nothing
and we will die with nothing. The physical things that
exist on this earth are merely for the test, and passing it
is all that matters as we only have one chance at it.
The physical materials we collect and build are
merely memories for others to benefit, recall,
contemplate and learn from. No matter how famous,
wealthy and powerful we are, it is just temporary. For
most of us, we will soon be forgotten and eventually not
remembered anymore as time passes. It is quite sad but
it is the simple truth. We have to make our lives
meaningful for ourselves and not for anyone else. We
have to acknowledge our selfish attitudes in order to
reject the possibility of it turning into arrogance. We are
to practice humbleness in our daily actions to deliver the
best possible outcomes for ourselves and all human kind.
We must realise that we are not the same as God, nor
will we ever be, in this life or the next. God is Majestic,
the most Powerful and the most Benevolent; therefore,
He has the sole right to be Arrogant. We must realise that
we are never majestic in any way whatsoever. If all that
we own, created, produce, built or obtained is never ours,
then how can we claim arrogance? Only the Creator of
all creations can claim arrogance. Therefore, we are
merely humble humans and the only way for us is to
adhere to His commands by submitting ourselves to
Him. We need to live life without arrogance in every
aspect of our days, at all time.
We must ensure that we pass the test with flying
colours since it is our personal test and we are the only
ones who will be able to eventually determine whether
we pass the test or not. This open test is just like an
assignment or a take away exam we used to have in our
schools or universities; the question is clear for everyone
to read, without hidden secrets or difficulties in
understanding its requirements. The questions are simple
but the preparation it takes to answer them is not since it
takes great effort to ensure completing the task which is
required for us by doing the best of our ability; to not just
pass, but to excel.
In completing the test, I urge you to think for
yourself. The faculty of thinking is ours and ours alone.
God gave us brains to think. What had passed is already
past. Now we can no longer blame others for our future
mistakes. No gurus, imams, monks, ministers or priests
would be responsible for our choices. It is ours alone.
Dont let others lead you to the wrath of God. They are
not the ones who will be answering for you, but you
yourself will have to endure it alone. As long as you hold
on to the correct scriptures and prophets then you are not
going astray. Follow those who do not ask for any
repayment from you, and they are rightly guided. So
think for yourself and make that choice.
Life is indeed short. With the acknowledgement of
this ultimate truth, we must now be able to choose how
to live our lives to its fullest, and by caring and loving
everything there is, it would help us remove all elements
of arrogance within ourselves; hence, achieving the
greatest happiness in this world and the ultimate
happiness in the hereafter. Because all the happiness in
this world is merely a sample taste of what everlasting
happiness will be waiting for us when we die. It all
depends on our choices and actions.
When the time comes, we cant blame Him for not
knowing about the test. Look at any scripture and you
will soon find literally everything youre looking for; in
fact, most of them contain clear statements of the
arrogance of God, arrogance of man and the humility of
man. They are directly reflecting the test. He wants us to
think about our mistakes which we had made based on
our own choices and we cant ask for a second chance.
There is no resitting for this test. It is truly a one-time
choice for us to use our intelligence, rationality and logic
that God had given to every one of us so that we could
choose how we are to act. We must correctly use our
mind to think; to be able to differentiate between right
and wrong.
God didnt betray or abandon us, or is playing some
kind of trick on us. He, being the most Loving, is always
with us every step of the way. Everything that happens
in life is for this trial, a test of faith and a test of
obedience. The test gets even tougher with the ever
increasing temptations from Satan and his followers.
Anyone who can avoid them and go further in achieving
humility will be clear victors. Even then, the increase of
the degree of the test will also increase as we move
towards higher humility and humbleness.
Nevertheless, we are not to ignore life. Go on living.
Enjoy all that He bestowed upon us and eat, live and be
happy. Be thankful and be compassionate to the others
surrounding you no matter who they are. Love one
another as God is the most loving of all by giving us the
gift of love. Always do good deeds for others as a way
of thanking God for what He had given you. Those who
are able to acknowledge the test are the ones that will be
able to derive the full pleasures of life without the worry
of making mistakes. How can a person be worried when
the path is clearly shown? They would be able to achieve
ultimate peace, serenity and tranquillity in life.
So the universal truth is about achieving the ultimate
justice to ourselves. This test of arrogance is the
universal moral standard test we should apply to obtain
justice, irrespective of who we are, what are our beliefs
may be or our time and place; be it tens of thousands of
years before or tens of thousands of years from now.
Regardless of whether you have received the revelations
through scriptures or not, no matter what religion you
belong to, we share the same goal. Whether we like it or
not, we must endure this great test. Let us not argue
anymore on who is right or wrong and complete this
universal moral test together.
 I know that in realising something of this magnitude,
which is so simple, is going to be too difficult for those
who dont want to believe and accept the fact. Especially
for those who dont believe in God. All I can say is too
bad. As Sallust said Every man is the architect of his
own fortune, so the choice is yours and yours alone to
make. The freedom of choice is truly yours. There are
those who want to object and criticise. Well again, it is a
free country, but I hope you dont criticise without
presenting a reasonable solution.
The outcome of all this is that, ultimately, there are
only two groups of people on this earth. The first are
those who are arrogant and the second are those who are
humble. This is irrespective of their religion or whether
they have no religion at all, irrespective of their status,
titles, knowledge, intelligence or whatever criteria or
society makeup they come from or claim to hold, as long
as they are arrogant, where God has asked us not to be,
or even if it is to be based on universal human values
alone, then they are surely to be found in the wrong.
In conclusion, with the greatness of God whom is the
most knowledgeable, I, like Plato, would like to admit
that I know now that I know nothing. I am simply an
apprentice who is still trying to learn his trade with
continuous struggles in removing arrogance that is still
within him. Please pray for me. May God bless us all!

****
GOD is Majestic, thus, rightfully Arrogant.
Humans are never majestic,
therefore,
humans can never be arrogant

01
Mankind can never have the arrogance of God

Al Mutakabbir
The Supremely Great

****