Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part III — Page 110
BarĀhĪn-e-a H madiyya — Part three 110 Sixth Objection: Perfect enlightenment can be obtained only through something which can be observed clearly at all times and in all ages. This characteristic is found in the book of nature, which is always open and is never closed. Therefore, it should be taken as one’s guide; for something which is closed most of the time and opens only on cer- tain occasions cannot be a guide. Answer: Considering the book of nature to be ‘open’ as compared to the Word of Allah is the surest sign of blindness. Those with unimpaired vision and insight know well that only such a book can be described as ‘open’ whose text is clear and unambiguous. Who can prove that anyone’s doubt was ever removed by merely looking at the book of nature? Who knows whether it has ever led anyone to the desired objective? Who can claim that he has completely understood all the signs of the book of nature? If it was indeed an open book, then why did those who placed their trust solely in it fall into thousands of errors. And why did they, having read from the same book, draw such contradictory conclusions that some believed in the existence of God to a degree while others denied His existence altogether. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that one who, after reading this book, does not deem it necessary that God should exist, would be granted a long enough life to discover his mistake at one time or another, the question still remains that if this book is indeed so ‘open’ why did its study lead to such grave errors. Do you consider a book to be open if its readers differ with regard to the very existence of God and start to diverge at the very outset. Is it not true that, having read this book of nature, thousands of thinkers and philosophers died as atheists or naturalists, while others remained idol-worshippers, and only he from among them followed the straight path who believed in revelation from Allah. Is it not a well-established truth that those who confined themselves only to the reading of this book, despite being hailed as great philos- ophers, continued to deny God’s Omniscience, creative power, and