5- Denial in the face of Proving has no value at all and has very little strength.
Denial in the face of Proving has no value at all and has very little strength. For example, in order to understand the beginning of Ramadan, it is enough to see the moon in the shape of crescent. So, when two persons prove the existence of the crescent moon by saying that “we have seen it”, which is an indicator of the beginning of Ramadan, but as opposed to them thousands of notables and scholars deny them by saying “we haven’t”, then their denial would be insignificant and has no strength. And regardless of their denial, it will be accepted that Ramadan has started. That is, the word of two persons, “we have seen it” instead of the word of a thousand people, “we haven’t” will be preferred.
The explanation of this truth is as follows: Proving supports one another and becomes strong. On the other hand, there is no difference in denial even it is made by one or a thousand; deniers remain alone. The person who proves does not look at his own self and thought. He looks at the outside and judges based on truth. For example, someone says: “There is a moon in the sky”, his friend approves it and sees the same; they come together and become strong.
On the other hand, when denial is in question looking at outside and giving judgment according to the truth is not possible. In denial, there is only judging by thoughts and suspicion. “A denial which is not personal and which is not based on a special place cannot be proved” is a famous rule. For example, if I say, “There exists coconut in the world and you say, “It does not exist”, I can easily prove my claim by showing a single coconut. However, in order to prove its non-existence, you must search; look and see every corner of the world so that you can say, “there is not any”. If you said, “there is not any”, you would judge without looking at truth and based on only personal thought and suspicion, which has no value and strength.
Since deniers cannot look at truth, it is certain that they judge according to their thoughts, reasoning and perceptions. Of course, the people who deny cannot support and help each other either because causes and reasons that prevent them from seeing the truth are different from one another. For example, some group of people who deny the existence of the crescent moon in our example would say, “we were sleeping”. Another group would say, “we could not see since it was cloudy”. And also some would say “we could not see since we have visual impairment” and so on… So, the results even differ by the variety of words as “in my opinion and in my view” or “I think”, and in that case there will be no solidarity and strengthening of one another. Everyone can say, “I do not see or I do not believe”. However, none could say, “there is not”. If someone said, he would tell a lie as big as the world related to belief which is connected to the whole universe.
In short: The result in proving is one; it looks at the external and truth, but does not act by its own thought and self. Because of this, there is solidarity and strengthening of one another. In denial, looking at the external and truth is not in question. There is a judgment according soul and apprehension. For this reason, they cannot give strength to one another. At this point of truth, the majority of unbelievers and deniers have no value in the subject of belief related to the existence of angels. They cannot harm the belief of a believer because they cannot prove their denials and cannot, do not and will not see the truth. They judge by their own thoughts. Let us look at the issue of belief in angles, which is our issue: A person, who denies the existence of angels, must travel the whole universe and look at every corner in order to prove his denial. This is not enough; he must show it us, too. He must even travel to the past and future and look so that he can prove his word, “there is not”. When he cannot succeed in doing it, his word, “there is not” is only his apprehension and suspicion. That is, “it does not exist” according to him but not in reality. It is not possible for him to deny in reality because as we have mentioned before, denial is divided into two:
The first one: Somebody says, “A certain thing does not exist at a certain place or in a particular direction.” For instance, to say, “There are no apples in this room. This kind of denial can be proved because it is possible to see and to show the whole room.
The second one is to deny the realities of belief related to the hereafter and centuries. This kind of denial cannot in any fashion be proved. What is needed to prove such denial is a vision that shall encompass the whole universe, behold the hereafter, and observe every aspect of time without limit. Then, even if thousands of philosophers who deny the existence of angels come together, they are regarded as one person; they cannot support the views of one another and they cannot testify for one another because they made judgments based on their thoughts and apprehensions. None of them searched every corner of the universe and looked for angels. However, those who accept the existence of angels did not make judgments based on their own thoughts but on evidence and looked outside. That is, the word of two people that prove is stronger and more valuable than the word of one thousand philosophers who deny.
Then, how can the words of philosophers who make their judgments based on their thoughts and apprehensions be believed regarding issues of belief, on which hundreds of thousands of saints like Abdulqadir Gaylani, who beheld Allah’s Sublime Throne while still on the earth, who spent ninety years advancing in spiritual work, and who unveiled the truths of belief with the certainty at the degree of knowledge, agree? Are not their words, denials and objections drowned out like the buzzing of a mosquito by the roaring of thunder?