जंगल में एक पेड़ गिरा और जोर की आवाज़ पैदा हुई.आस पास कोई प्राणी नहीं था जो इस आवाज़ को सुनता या गिरते हुए पेड़ को देखता. तो मानो वह पेड़ गिरा ही नहीं.
(Translation: A tree falls in a jungle making a huge noise. There was no one around who could hear the noise or witness the fall. So for all you know the tree never fell.)
The easiest way to prove the existence of Allah is to see around us the ways and forms in which he has manifested Himself. Those who naively say that Nature has got things done by sheer chance in umpteen permutations and combinations of matter must be confronted with this analogy. A single cell, we know, is million times more complicated, intricate and ‘live’ than say Eifel Tower. Imagine that this tower came in to being when iron girders, nuts and bolts etc. were given for unlimited time jolts of hurricane and lo at one time the tower was achieved. You will say never. Then how can a cell be formed, how a plant, animal, humans, intelligence, time, space, feelings, etc be created just by chance? There MUST be a creator, therefore.
Now please proceed with what I have to say about “HIDDEN TREASURE”
HEART BEATS یہ دھواں سا کہاں سے اٹھتا ہے 
salim598786
June 24, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Shakeel Bhai I like this post very much. Hum jaise bhtake huey insaanon ke liye ek lamha e fikria fraham karti hai. AAdmi ko sochne par majboor karti hai. baqaul shair ” Koi to hai jo nizam e hasti chala raha hai, wohi Khuda hai” ” dikhai bhi jo na de nazar bhi jo aa raha hai, wohi Khuda hai.”
Is Khoobsoorat post ke liye mubarakbad.
shakilakhtar
June 24, 2012 at 9:49 pm
thanks a lot sir I am humbled. I allow that I perhaps dwelt upon a topic that I am hardly equal to but I did it regardless hoping that Allah SWT will pardon me if I did it a little above my lot.
Sharmishtha
June 24, 2012 at 10:18 pm
amazing post shakeel, will have to read it thoroughly, slowly its huuuuuge.
shakilakhtar
June 25, 2012 at 11:52 am
really take your time. You will do more hard work as Urdu, Arabic will pose problems but there are enough translation there to get the gist at least. thanks for reading and liking it, Sharmishtha.
Azeem Khan
June 25, 2012 at 3:57 am
Really Interesting Post —– Waki Who Sher toh aur payadaar gaya hai ….
shakilakhtar
June 25, 2012 at 11:50 am
us sher ke liye shukria qubool kareN. yeh kis ka hai? aur post bhi achhi lagi uske liye bhi shukria.
Azeem Khan
June 25, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Yeh sher Akbar Allahabadi ka hai ,,,,,,,,,
Ibnul Hassan
June 25, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Ghalib ne kaha
Ghirni thi barq – e – Tazalli hum pe na toor pe
deke hain bada zarf kada khawar dekh kar
shakilakhtar
June 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm
گرنی تھی ہم پہ برق تجلی نہ طور پر
دیتے ہیں بادہ ظرف قدح خوار دیکھ کر
kya khoob sher nikala hai. shukria hamari kawish ko parhne ke liye Hassan Bhai. Salaam
Rafiullah Mian
June 25, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Janab, ap ka ye nihayat qabil-e-qadr blog parha hay tu bohot khushi horahi hay.
Meray senses k mutabiq ap nay bohot hi achi tarah say… kisi maahirana thesis k tareeq say bilkul hat kar…. aek bohot aam fehm andaz main… jo mujh jese aam dimaghoN ko bohot appeal karta hay…. is mozo ko samaitaa hay. aor itni khobsorati aor dilchispii say paish kia hay k parhne wala kahen bhi soch k kisi bhaari-pan say bojhal nahi hopata…aor aakhir tak mudda’a samjhtay houe poori dilchispii k sath parhta jata hay… tu aek likhne walay k fun main aor kia khoobi honi chahiye, is k siwa?
Ap nay jo bhi likha hay, os main koi bhi aesi baat ya point nahi hay, jis say ikhtilaf kia jasakay. main kahonga k ap nay itnay naazak mozo ko dilnasheeN andaz main tehreer kia hay.
Aakhrii baat: meray khayaal main Ghalib sahib ki shayirana zindagi apnay ham-asr shayiroN k sath fun k muqablon mian guzri hay.. unhain shuro say ye gumaan tha k dunyaay-e-sukhan main os ka hamsar koi nahi hay… lekin kia keejiye k ham-asroN main kisi nay onhain tasleem nahi kia… aor Shah k darbaar main wo hamesha pazeerayi k liye muntazir aor pur-umeed rahay…ye aor baat hay k jhanjhlahat main wo sataayish say beparwa honay k elaan kartay hain…
shakilakhtar
June 26, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Rafi MiaN, mujhe khushi hai k aap ko meri kawish pasand aayi. Aap ne bahot hi tafseel se tabsra kiya hai aur haq nibha dia hai.
Ghalib ke bare mein aap ki raaye bilkul saheh hai. woh sher to unhooN ne jhajhlahat meiN likh dia lekin woh bhi aur kisi fankaar ki tarah satayesh aur sile ke dildadah the. Darasl satyesh, daad, taareef kisi bhi funkaar ke liye rooh ki ghiza ki tarah hoti hai, us se uski funkarana salahiyyat ko jila milti hai. khush raheN.
Rafiullah Mian
June 27, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Shukria, achay lafzoN k liye. Aor achay jazbay k liye.
Khaksaar
Rafiullah Mian
June 27, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Ap nay translation work bhi bohot khoobi k sath complete kia hay.
Ye bilashuba qabil-e-sataayish hay.
shakilakhtar
June 28, 2012 at 8:49 am
shukria. I wanted to show you in case there were mistakes. I would have loved to make corrections if there are any.
Rafiullah Mian
June 28, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Nothing. I didn’t find any mistake in translation. Otherwise I must indicate errors. You did it interestingly.
I’ve read it with meditation.
shakilakhtar
September 8, 2012 at 10:00 am
for more understading, or confusion, visit this great site
jrfibonacci
September 8, 2012 at 11:24 am
Thank you for the introduction in your prior reply, Shakilakhtar. And thank you for the invitation to come to your blog and post a comment.
Let’s note that we are interacting here using the tool of language. Or, we could say that language is active now and two patterns of activity are distinct from each other.
One pattern can be called “J.R.” The other pattern can be called Shakilakhtar. Both are patterns of activity. Both involve patterns of linguistic activity in particular.
One pattern is active in a form that could be labeled English (“mine”) and the other is fluent and active in that language and a few other languages as well. However, naming 5 different languages or 832 different languages is just varying degrees of precision in subcategorizing.There is no specific correct number of languages on the planet. However, clearly, there is such a thing as language, whether we call it Lingua or Logos or by some other label.
So, can we prove the existence of language? Before you try to prove the existence of a tree in a forest that fell without anyone around and before you propose to assert the existence of Allah, can you prove the existence of language?
If you witness language as language, then you may be labeled “Allah.” If you witness that you are not language, but the author of language, then you are the one who divides “here” from “there,” heaven from earth, day from night and so on. You divide these things with language (labels).
I cannot prove the existence of the word Halla, but I can use it and I give it existence. How can I just created a word like Halla and begin to use it? Because language is my creation. I am the author of language.
What is Halla? It is a five letter sequence based on a reversal of this five letter sequence: Allah.
What does Halla mean? I get to make that up. I can say that Halla means all activity, including the activity of dividing one pattern from another and then labeling them in language.
Of all activity, linguistic activity is one type. Of all linguistic activity, the words Halla and Allah are two instances of linguistic activity.
Activity is omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, and omniscient. I am activity. I am the Tao. I am the Supreme Brahman Being that has been called many words: 101 names, 1001 names, and so on. Allah is one name of Halla. Halla is one name of Allah.
Name one thing that is not activity, if you can. Even naming already implies activity in language. We cannot escape from activity because we are activity. I can no more escape from Allah than a body can escape from it’s own skeleton.
Allah is reality. Reality is omnipresent, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent. When reality changes, then everything else changes too because there is nothing that is not the Holy One.
Jesus was asked two identify the most important spiritual teaching. He quoted an old Hebrew saying (that may be a translation of a much older Vedic saying) which says “The Divine Authority is One: undivided, boundless, inclusive.”
Some approximations of that idea are reflected in the words of those who claim not to be Prophets of God, who claim to have a lesser degree of understanding. They translate like this: “The LORD thy God is One.” That is close enough.
However, God does not claim to be outside of those who claim to be outside of God. When God operates as a pattern of linguistic activity that results in the speaking of the words “I am not God and I do not even believe God exists,” that is basically no different to God than any of the other activities of God or acts of God.
Name one development that is not the Will of God. Name one development that is not evidence of God. When God manifests as a human watching a tree fall in a forest, there may be a manifesting of the awareness of all of that activity as the activity of God. Or, there may not be such an awareness (as in such a labeling).
I see a computer screen with shapes on it. Who invented these shapes? Who recognizes them as words in English? Who recognizes the difference between clarity and confusion, witnessing them both? Who uses a word like God or Allah or Halla?
If I define myself as a body that was created, then I can assert that I am a temporary body and, further, that God is not just this temporary body, so I must not be God. Or, I can assert that God abides in this body and that this body abides in God.
Or, God can assert that God abides in this body and that this body abides in God. When God speaks as God, there is a faith or certainty that is distinct from when God speaks as a temporary body.
When an actress puts two puppets on each hand, then the hand puppets start talking to each other like there are two isolated hand puppets, could the two hand puppets, which do not really exist except in language, have an argument about whether or not it is possible for hands to invisibly exist inside of the puppets?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaEUIslLBz8
jrfibonacci
September 8, 2012 at 11:53 am
God can even form sequences of words like this: “I am God but you are not. You are just an atheist. God does not abide in you. God hates you. God created you, made you in to an atheist, then condemned you for being an atheist and punished you for eternity, but only because God loves you like God loves all of God’s prefect creations made in the image of a perfect God.”
So, dear reader, you who struggle with God (which is an English translation of the Hebrew word “Israel”), dear you lover of divinity, called in Greek “Theophilus,” this is God communicating with you and directing you to name one development that is not the Will of God. Name one development that is not evidence of God. Can you label something “proof that God does not exist?” Can’t you!? But so what! That changes nothing but the labeling, the language, the naming, the categorizing.
You, dear reader, can say that I am Satan and that I am here to tempt you, but isn’t the linguistic label “Satan” also the creation of God, a pattern of activity under the authority of the omnipotent God, isn’t Satan the agent or messenger or angel or Prophet of God? If God made a disguise and called it “Satan” and then Satan (who is really just a creation of God) made a disguise and called it Christ or Buddha or Mohammed, would a disguise change the underlying reality? Would it change the contents of a jar of pickles to put a new label that said “potatoes” on the jar of pickles? Would there still be pickles in the jar or would they disappear and be replaced by potatoes because now God was using the disguise of the word Satan or the word Jesus or the word J.R.?
What does the word Devil mean? It is from the Greek root “dia-bolos,” which means to throw a label across something, to disguise it, or, more broadly, to accuse or slander, as in vilify. Ironic, huh? God created vilification. God created the Devil and dia-bolos and atheists and every word of every language. Name one word that is not the word of God, who is the creator of all things?
jrfibonacci
September 8, 2012 at 12:10 pm
When there is an operating awareness of the nature of language, linguistic activity can be quite fun and refreshing and clear- eventually. In the absence of such an operating awareness or clarity, many patterns in language can be produced which are somewhat garbled, easily confused, mislabeled, misunderstood, mistaken- like the babbling of an infant.
How many languages are there? Dividing all of language in to 4 categories or 128 does not change the fact that all languages are language.
It is like saying that there are 4 quarts in a gallon or 128 ounces in a gallon, then asking whether a gallon has 4 parts or 128 parts. Dividing one meter in to 100 centimeters or 1000 millimeters does not change the length of one meter.
jrfibonacci
September 8, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Likewise, dividing reality in to “God vs. the Atheists” is completely poetic. All of language is a bunch of symbolic poetry for the purpose of re-organizing the intelligence of life, the Living God.
jrfibonacci
September 8, 2012 at 12:19 pm
“I am only the Divine Authority and nothing but that, and there is only one Divine Reality without any rival or opponent or adversary, for I am Unitary, Holy, Singular, Inclusive, Comprehensive, Boundless, Undivided, and Eternal.”
shakilakhtar
September 15, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Dear JF(or J.R.) I had to read your comments several times and over several days now and still cannot decide what to make of all this. One thing is perhaps clearer: that you seem to be obsessed with whatever you think of a ‘language’. Now you seem to be a proponent of God as a reality, now otherwise. In your last comment above:
“I am only the Divine Authority and nothing but that, and there is only one Divine Reality without any rival or opponent or adversary, for I am Unitary, Holy, Singular, Inclusive, Comprehensive, Boundless, Undivided, and Eternal.”
you appear to have almost entirely tranlated one of the most important ayahs (sentences) of Qoran
called Ayatul Kursi)(2:255)
Translations:
Muhsin Khan
Allah! La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. Neither slumber, nor sleep overtake Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission? He knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them in the Hereafter . And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. [This Verse 2:255 is called Ayat-ul-Kursi.]
Pickthall
Allah! There is no deity save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous.
Dr. Ghali
Allah. There is no god except He, The Ever-Living, The Superb Upright Sustainer. Slumber does not overtake Him, nor sleep; to Him (belongs) whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Who is there that intercedes for His Providence except by His Permission? He knows whatever is in front of them (Literally: between their hands) and whatever is behind them, and they do not encompass anything of His Knowledge except whatever He has decided. His Chair embraces the heavens and the earth; the preserving of them (Literally: them both) does not tire Him; and He is The Ever-Exalted, The Ever-Magnificent.
Urdu
خدا (وہ معبود برحق ہے کہ) اس کے سوا کوئی عبادت کے لائق نہیں زندہ ہمیشہ رہنے والا اسے نہ اونگھ آتی ہے نہ نیند جو کچھ آسمانوں میں اور جو کچھ زمین میں ہیں سب اسی کا ہے کون ہے جو اس کی اجازت کے بغیر اس سے (کسی کی) سفارش کر سکے جو کچھ لوگوں کے روبرو ہو رہا ہے اور جو کچھ ان کے پیچھے ہوچکا ہے اسے سب معلوم ہے اور وہ اس کی معلومات میں سے کسی چیز پر دسترس حاصل نہیں کر سکتے ہاں جس قدر وہ چاہتا ہے (اسی قدر معلوم کرا دیتا ہے) اس کی بادشاہی (اور علم) آسمان اور زمین سب پر حاوی ہے اور اسے ان کی حفاظت کچھ بھی دشوار نہیں وہ بڑا عالی رتبہ اور جلیل القدر ہے
Also God Himself says (55:4)
“Allamahul bayan)
Muhsin Khan
He taught him eloquent speech.
Pickthall
He hath taught him utterance.
Dr. Ghali
He has taught him distinct (Literally: evident (demonstration) (speech).
Urdu
اسی نے اس کو بولنا سکھایا
The only thing that humans have and animals don’t is power to speak.
jrfibonacci
September 15, 2012 at 8:04 pm
God is a word for reality. The word “I” is also a word for reality. Every word is a word for reality, or some particular quality of reality or pattern of reality. God is a word for reality itself. Alternatively, reality is a word for God itself.
We are reality. What else could we be? There is nothing but reality, right?
So, we as reality use a variety of words and phrases for reality, which is what we are. All of the words are real words and all of the phrases are real phrases. One word we may use is God. Another is reality. Another is Allah.
The simplest and most basic of these 3 words may be “reality.” So, we are clear on what reality is, at least conceptually. However, what if we do not get the full importance of the fact that reality itself is omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal and so on?
In the case that we are familiar with the word “reality” but we do not recognize IN REALITY the importance of the concept of reality, then we might invent some other word besides reality to use to clarify our direct, non-linguistic recognition. This is reality. It is right here on this screen. It is also the consciousness (“the reader”) looking at this screen.
A word that reality invented to clarify the actual meaning of the word reality is “God.” Allah and Brahman are words for the same purpose.
Knowing what reality is conceptually, but not knowing experientially the reality of reality, is possible. You are the reality of reality. I am the reality of reality. One word for the reality of reality is “God.”
God is the one who knows the reality of reality. God is also reality. There is nothing else.
“Nothing” is only a label, a word. There isn’t any of it anywhere.
The only thing that exists is reality, which also calls itself God, as well as using every other name to identify itself in various ways. Every name is a name from reality, of reality, for reality. Every name is a name from God, of God, for God.
Every name is a creation of God. Every thing named is an aspect of God (of reality). You, as reality, can identify yourself as a fragment of a broken reality. That may be a misidentification.
jrfibonacci
September 15, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Note that I did not translate anything. I spoke as reality.
When reality speaks, it can speak in any language, for all languages are the languages of reality. Reality can also say “I translated something from one language to another.”
Whenever speech happens, that is reality speaking. Reality can say: “It is not I who do these things, but Reality who does them through me. It is not through my personal power, but through the power of Reality. It is not through my personal will, but through the Will of Reality.”
However, even “personal power” and “personal will” are just phrases spoken by reality. Reality has many names, many personas, many identities, many forms.
Can you name one form that is not a form of reality? Can you identify one reality that is not reality?