Life After Death: A Study Guide

Quiz

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.

1. According to the source, what is science’s position on the existence of life after death?
2. Why does the text argue that the question of life after death is not just a philosophical one?
3. How does the text use the analogy of two travelers to illustrate the impact of beliefs about the afterlife on behavior?
4. According to the source, what role does the heart play in understanding the possibility of an afterlife, when science fails to provide answers?
5. What comparison is made to illustrate the need for a system that can fully account for the consequences of human actions, both good and bad?
6. What does the text mean by the idea that “the present company of the world in our current system has not done anything with nature”?
7. How is the concept of reward and punishment connected to the idea of an afterlife?
8. How does the text use the example of rain bringing life to dry land to support the idea of an afterlife?
9. Why does the text criticize those who claim there is no life after death?
10. What does the text suggest about how the nature of the afterlife would differ from the current world?

Quiz Answer Key

1. The source states that science cannot definitively confirm or deny the existence of life after death, as it lacks the means to investigate such a realm. Thus, the question is outside the scope of science.
2. The text argues that the question of life after death profoundly impacts family life and moral choices, shaping one’s attitude and actions. The belief in an afterlife changes the way one acts in the present.
3. The analogy shows that if a traveler thinks their journey ends in Mumbai, they will act differently than if they believe Mumbai is just a stop on a longer journey with a final destination and judgement. This highlights the way one’s beliefs about the afterlife influence present behavior.
4. The source suggests that when science fails to offer an answer, we should consult our heart. The heart can guide us and provides a way to connect with that which cannot be directly known through scientific means.
5. The text notes that human bodies are composed of the same elements as the universe and therefore need to be treated with respect. The idea of using the universe as a model suggests that, just as all forces of nature act according to universal laws, so too should the effects of good and evil.
6. The current world is run with systems that do not take into account the laws and order of nature, including the laws of morality.
7. The text asserts that the present system cannot fully reward the good or punish the bad. The promise of an afterlife ensures justice where actions will ultimately be weighed for their moral value.
8. The analogy of rain giving life to dry land is used to illustrate the idea that just as life can reappear in unexpected ways, so too might it be possible for life to exist again after death.
9. The source argues that those who deny life after death do so without a basis to do so and their denial ignores the possibility that people can be resurrected and given a final judgement.
10. The text suggests that the afterlife would have a different nature than this world; with different rewards, punishments, and judgements according to a higher standard, where truth is the only thing valued and not worldly wealth or power.

Essay Questions

1. Discuss the relationship between science and faith as presented in the text. How does the text use the limitations of science to justify exploring the possibility of life after death through other means?
2. Analyze the various examples and analogies used in the text to illustrate the impact of beliefs about the afterlife on moral behavior.
3. Examine the text’s critique of the current world system and its inability to fully account for the consequences of human actions. How does the idea of an afterlife serve as a solution to this inadequacy?
4. Discuss the significance of the text’s claim that the question of life after death is not just a mental or philosophical one, but has a profound impact on family life and social interactions.
5. Explore the nature of justice in the current world versus the justice that is promised in the afterlife, according to this text. What are some of the specific ways the text suggests this other form of justice is different?

Glossary of Key Terms

• Scientific Attitude: An approach that relies on empirical evidence and observation to understand the world, limiting conclusions to what can be proven through scientific methods.
• Naseer (and “This Matter”): Terms used in the text to represent different sources of knowledge or understanding, indicating that the answer is not necessarily found through one way of knowing. This demonstrates the author’s belief that some things must be approached through science and other matters must be approached through other sources, like the heart.
• Family Life: Refers to the interpersonal dynamics, obligations, and social codes within a family structure, and how they are influenced by beliefs about life after death, rather than just logic.
• Sovereignty of Action: The power or authority to make choices and act based on a guiding belief system, such as whether this life is the first and last, or one of many lives.
• Bhavani: The term used for the system or law that dictates how natural elements and human bodies operate, which suggests order and that results should match behaviors.
• Akhtar and Oil: Used to represent the different ways we approach the question of the afterlife: Akhtar, representing rational inquiry, and oil, representing intuition and the heart.
• Akhlaq Khan: A name used to represent the standard of ethical behavior or moral integrity which will be valued above all other things in the afterlife.
• Haq: Refers to those who are in denial of the afterlife.
• Raqesh of Khusro: Used in the text to show how impossible it is that something of this earth was not meant for a different reality than what we live.
• La Mahala: The condition of existing in two remarks, highlighting the text’s argument that people are either on one side or the other when it comes to the nature of the universe.

Life, Death, and the Afterlife

Okay, here’s a detailed briefing document summarizing the main themes and ideas from the provided text.

Briefing Document: Exploration of Life, Death, and Afterlife

Introduction

This document analyzes a philosophical text grappling with the profound questions of life, death, and the possibility of an afterlife. The text emphasizes the limitations of science in addressing these questions and explores the impact of beliefs about an afterlife on morality and human behavior. It ultimately argues for the existence of an afterlife based on inherent human needs for justice and the apparent incompleteness of earthly existence.

Main Themes and Key Ideas

1. The Limits of Scientific Knowledge:

• The text asserts that science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of an afterlife. It uses strong language to suggest that the tools and methods of scientific inquiry are not equipped to “peep beyond the border of death.”
• Quote: “That there is a moment after life, whether there is another life after death or not and if yes, then what is it like, this question is really far from the kitchen of our knowledge… as far as science is concerned, This question is absolutely out of the scope of this question.”
• It criticizes those who claim scientific certainty about the absence of an afterlife, stating that such claims are “unscientific.”
• It acknowledges that while a “scientific attitude” might be to deny an afterlife due to lack of evidence, this attitude is not always practical or suitable for life.

1. The Impact of Afterlife Beliefs on Morality:

• The author argues that belief in an afterlife profoundly shapes moral behavior and decision-making. Whether one believes this life is all there is or that there is a subsequent accounting significantly impacts a person’s actions and attitude towards life.
• Quote: “If I am ready to believe that the life which If there is only this life of this world and there is no other life after this, then my attitude is of a different kind or if I think that there is another life after this in which I will have to give an account of my present life…”
• The text uses the analogy of travelers journeying to Mumbai and beyond, to illustrate this point: someone who thinks that their journey is done when they get to Mumbai will have a much different attitude compared to a person who knows they are going to go to another country after the journey. One plans only for Mumbai while the other plans for the other country as well. The author also states that the idea of a continued journey beyond earthly life, with moral accounting, encourages behavior aimed towards a more important final destination.
• The author states that our minimum expectations and how we operate in the world is drastically different based on whether this is our first and last life, or if there is a subsequent life.

1. Human Intuition and the Need for Justice:

• The text emphasizes that human nature inherently seeks justice and order which are often not found in this life.
• Quote: “There is the etiquette of good and bad, there is the capacity to do good and bad, and its nature demands that the bad consequences of good and evil should be made visible…”
• It highlights the seeming unfairness of earthly existence, where those who commit great evil often escape adequate punishment, while those who perform great good may not receive sufficient reward during their lifetime.
• Quote: “Is it possible that such people can get the full reward of their initiative in this world? Can we imagine that in the present world Inside the rise of Tayy Qabbani A person can get the full reward of his deeds whose repercussions have spread to thousands of years and countless people after his death…”
• The text argues that the human moral compass and innate understanding of good and evil would require that good and bad both reach their natural consequence. This innate sense cannot be logically explained as it originates outside of this realm.
• The author mentions the Quran which states that the world will be destroyed and a new one will be created where all those who ever lived will be gathered to account for their actions.
• The author emphasizes that the rewards and punishments we see in the current world is based on “gold and silver”, while the reward of the afterlife is based on “truth and the fire of Akhlaq Khan”.

1. The Incompleteness of This World:

• The text posits that the human experience seems incomplete within the confines of this earthly life.
• Quote: “This shows that the current destruction is enough for the switch of the Sangh and the demon Nasir in the world under the command of Phil Dawood. But this world is not enough for his All India Mission, therefore a second Ninja world is required for him…”
• It suggests that there’s a “second Ninja world” or a new system required to fully realize the potential for moral justice and the full consequences of human actions. It points out that this world operates on different standards (money and power) compared to the afterlife (morality).
• The limited scope of earthly time, compared to the long-lasting consequences of actions, further underscores the need for another life where the scales of justice can be properly balanced.

1. The Analogy of Nature:

• The author points to the life cycle of plants as evidence for an afterlife.
• Quote: “that Allah rains water from the sky and suddenly puts its ugly life into the dead body lying on the ground, surely there is a sign in this for the listeners”
• Just as seemingly dead plants come back to life every rainy season, the author argues that human beings can also be resurrected after death.
• The Error of Denying the Afterlife:The author states that it’s illogical and foolish to deny the possibility of an afterlife, especially since no one can scientifically prove that there is nothing after death.
• Quote: “although none of his lecturers had any way of knowing earlier, nor is there any now, nor will it ever be possible, that there is no other life after death. But these foolish people have always claimed this with great force, although there is no single basis to deny it…”
• Those who think they have the answer to the question of the afterlife are in fact, foolish as no one can possibly have the complete answer to something that is completely outside of science.

Conclusion

The text concludes by emphasizing the necessity of an afterlife to fulfill the demands of human nature for justice, and to provide a complete accounting of life. It uses the analogy of nature and the cycles of life to suggest that the resurrection and afterlife is a distinct possibility, not a far-fetched or impossible one. It is critical for the reader to engage with this subject on a deeper level than just the scientific, and to understand that a failure to do so would be a huge detriment.

Life After Death: Justice, Morality, and the Human Condition

FAQ: Life, Death, and Morality

1. According to science, can we definitively say whether or not there is life after death?

Science, as a discipline, cannot definitively answer the question of whether there is life after death. We lack the tools and methods to observe or measure anything beyond the boundary of death. Therefore, from a scientific perspective, the question is considered outside the realm of what can be studied. Someone claiming scientific evidence against afterlife is just as unscientific as someone claiming scientific evidence for it. Science doesn’t yet have a way to approach the question.

2. If science can’t answer the question of life after death, what are other approaches we can take to understand this complex topic?

Since science is limited, we can consider other avenues, such as looking inward and consulting our hearts and intuition. Observing the world and human nature can also provide clues, as well as engaging with religious or philosophical ideas that attempt to grapple with this question. This text suggests that our deeply held moral feelings about justice and retribution are a valid starting point.

3. How does the belief or disbelief in an afterlife impact our actions in this life?

Whether we believe this life is the only one, or that there’s a life after death, has a profound impact on our daily choices. If we think this life is all there is, our focus may be on immediate gratification, or this world’s rewards and punishments. Conversely, if we believe in an afterlife with consequences for our earthly actions, we might prioritize long-term moral goals and consider our actions in terms of their implications beyond this life. The text provides the analogy of two travelers with different destinations who behave differently based on their long-term goals.

4. Why does the text suggest our concept of life after death is not just a philosophical question but deeply relevant to family life?

Our view of life after death is not just an abstract idea, it’s fundamentally linked to how we live and interact with our families. If we believe our current actions will have consequences beyond this life, that changes our perspective on the value of our relationships and how we act within them. Our ethical framework and sense of responsibility are largely shaped by our views on the continuity of life, whether one thinks of only the life on this Earth or a life to come as well. A family attitude cannot be based in doubt.

5. What does the text suggest about the nature of human justice and its limitations in this world?

The world’s system of justice is often imperfect and incomplete. Those who commit great harm may not receive proportional punishments, while those who perform great good may not receive full recognition. The long-term impacts of actions, whether positive or negative, often extend beyond a single human lifespan, meaning that traditional earthly legal systems can never be sufficient for total justice. In other words the rewards and punishments we see in this world seem insufficient.

6. According to the text, how does nature itself point to the possibility of another system of justice beyond this world?

The text argues that nature, in the process of life, death, and rebirth, hints at the possibility of a larger system. Just as rain can cause dead earth to come alive, similarly justice will have its moment. The text uses the example of seeds, growing, and then dying in winter, only to be reborn in the spring. This, the text suggests, points to the plausibility of a second life, governed by the rules of absolute moral justice. The text suggests the fact that people are born with ideas of justice and injustice also points to this ultimate system.

7. What is the text’s view of the purpose of a potential afterlife?

An afterlife, according to this text, would be a place where true justice can be realized. Those who have caused great harm will receive the full measure of their due, and those who have acted justly will receive their full reward. This is described as a world where there is no escape from responsibility, no death, sickness, or old age, and therefore no escaping the consequences of one’s actions. This other world is where our moral intuitions can be satisfied.

8. What common misconception does the text point out about claims regarding life after death?

The text points out that many people claim with certainty that there is no life after death, despite the lack of evidence either for or against it. They claim this while not being able to know if this life is our only life. This, the text argues, is as much a leap of faith as believing in an afterlife, and that this claim is made without any basis. It is arrogant for one to assume they have enough information to completely deny such a concept.

Justice, Morality, and the Afterlife

Okay, here is the timeline and cast of characters based on the provided text:

Timeline of Main Events

This text primarily deals with a philosophical and theological discussion about life after death, morality, and justice. There are no specific historical events described, but rather a presentation of arguments and viewpoints. Therefore, the timeline will reflect key concepts discussed in the text:

• Beginning of Time/Human Existence: The text begins with the fundamental question of the existence of an afterlife and the scientific limits of our understanding about it. It establishes that science cannot prove or disprove an afterlife.
• The Impact of Belief on Moral Life: The text then explores how belief in an afterlife dramatically shapes one’s actions in the present life, drawing comparisons between those who believe in only one life (a “Mumbai” destination) and those who believe in a subsequent life (a journey beyond the “ocean”).
• Moral Choices & Accountability: The discussion progresses to the idea that our actions are deeply influenced by our belief in an afterlife and that this should guide our moral conduct. The text asserts that the current world is insufficient to provide perfect justice and therefore suggests the need for another system.
• Critique of Current World System: The text criticizes the current world’s limitations in delivering justice, pointing out that consequences are often delayed or not fully realized in a single lifetime. It gives examples of arsonists and warmongers to illustrate this idea.
• Arguments for an Afterlife: The text presents the view that a second “Ninja” world is necessary to provide the complete justice demanded by human nature. This afterlife is described as a place where the laws of morality are supreme, and where past actions will have their full consequences. It also states that this view is supported by the Quran.
• Resurrection and Judgement: The text presents a scenario where all humans who have ever existed will be resurrected and judged by God. The concept of having to face consequences from actions is emphasized.
• Analogies of Nature: The author uses the analogy of rain resurrecting barren land to support the concept of life after death and resurrection. It’s also used to criticize those who claim death is the end.
• Critique of Atheism: The text argues that the denial of an afterlife is a fundamental mistake based on foolishness, and not actual knowledge or proof. It also says that the denial of absolute justice is also against wisdom.

Cast of Characters

This text doesn’t present characters as individuals in a story, but rather as conceptual archetypes or figures:

• Naseer: A figure mentioned as someone to consult when trying to understand difficult issues where one doesn’t have personal knowledge. (Likely metaphorical/hypothetical, not a real individual from the text itself.)
• Chuck: An unknown person used as an example to illustrate the necessity of making a decision about their honesty when interacting with them, whether one is certain or not. (Likely metaphorical/hypothetical, not a real individual.)
• Ala Mahala: This seems to be a type of approach or person, perhaps a denier of truth, and this approach should not be followed.
• Amarkant: This seems to be an event that needed to be organized, due to the doubts of the approach of Ala Mahala.
• Bhavani: Described as the force or “government” of the universe, implying a natural law or system of operation. It is found throughout the universe and also within humans.
• Kar Verma: A force or principle that is powerful and dominates the living, as well as humanity. This being controls the good and bad choices that people make.
• Madan: Used as a reference to humanity and where the battle of good and bad are always at play. This reference may be meant to have the same meaning as “Kar Verma” as well.
• Chandra Khas: An example of a political leader or warmonger who abuses power and causes widespread harm, but does not receive just punishment in this life. (Likely metaphorical/hypothetical.)
• Gidda: Is a type of work, specifically warmongering, that Chandra Khas used to manipulate people into action.
• Tayy Qabbani: An example of a person of virtue whose actions continue to help others, however it is not possible to get the full reward in this world. (Likely metaphorical/hypothetical.)
• Eknath The current system of law is defined as running under the principles of this being.
• Mahesh: Is a helper of the company that will work under the second Ninja world.
• Akhlaq Khan: A symbol of truth and morality that is found within the afterlife.
• Allah Ta’ala: Refers to God, who is described as the judge of humankind in the afterlife, who will create them again.
• Adam: The first man, used to illustrate the argument for resurrection.
• Raqesh of Khusro: A reference to a work of art, or something of great beauty, where its creator is not responsible for its actions.
• Kartik Used as an example of a person who is bold and says either the human is irresponsible, or he thinks he is creating a whole new universe for humankind.
• Hakim: Is used to criticize a fool who makes the wrong judgement.
• Amy and Bill: Used as examples of people required for the “Queen Hit Broker”
• Prophet (peace be upon him): The religious figure whose words about resurrection are affirmed by the author.
• “The Poor”: Refers to humanity, who will be resurrected and judged.
• Haq: Is referenced as being the fundamental misguidance that people fall into when they claim there is no afterlife.

Note: Many of the “characters” are presented as archetypes or hypothetical figures used to illustrate arguments. They are not characters in a narrative with a plot.

This timeline and cast of characters should provide a structured overview of the main topics and figures discussed within the provided text.

Life After Death: A Quranic Perspective

The sources discuss the concept of life after death, noting that it is a question that science cannot answer [1]. Here’s a breakdown of key ideas:

• Limits of Scientific Knowledge: The sources emphasize that there is no scientific way to know what happens after death [1]. There are no “eyes” to see beyond the border of death, nor “ears” to hear sounds from there [1].
• The Question of Attitude: The belief, or disbelief, in an afterlife significantly impacts how one lives in the present life [2]. If someone believes this life is the only one, their attitude and actions will be different than someone who believes in an afterlife where they will be held accountable [2]. The question of life after death is not just philosophical, but has a deep connection with our family life and moral decisions [2, 3].
• Moral Implications: The sources suggest that our moral actions and choices are tied to our beliefs about life after death. Whether one considers this life the first and last, or if there is a subsequent life with consequences, it greatly influences the decisions one makes [3].
• The Need for Justice: The current system of the world does not allow for complete justice, as the consequences of one’s actions can last for generations [4]. The sources posit that a second world might be necessary for a system where the full consequences of actions can be realized [5]. The intellect and nature demand that there should be a state where all the actions of a person, good or bad, have their consequences [5].
• A Second World: The concept of another world is introduced, where the laws of morality reign and where those who have died can be completely free to receive the consequences of their actions [5]. This world is described as being very different, where truth holds value, and where people will experience the full impact of their choices [5].
• The Quran’s Perspective: The sources reference the Quran, which states that the current world will be destroyed and a new system will be formed [5]. In this new system, all humans who have ever lived will be brought before God and made to account for their actions [5]. Every action will be felt, and those responsible will be judged [5, 6]. The rewards for good and punishment for evil will be carried out fully, without the limitations of the current world, including death [6].
• Signs of a Creator: The world around us and the cycle of life and death offer signs for those willing to see [7]. For example, the fact that life springs from dead land after the rains suggests the possibility of a resurrection [7].
• The Problem of Injustice: The sources highlight the injustice in the world, where those who have caused great harm or done great good might not experience the full consequences of their actions in this lifetime. Those who have guided humanity towards the right and the path and those who have spread misery will receive a reward or punishment in another world [4, 6].
• Rejection of Denial: The sources argue that it’s foolish to claim definitively that there is no life after death, as there is no way to know this [8].

Science and the Afterlife

The sources discuss scientific attitude in the context of the question of life after death, noting its limitations and how it should be applied [1]. Here are some key points regarding scientific attitude, as presented in the sources:

• Limitations of Science: The sources state that science is not equipped to answer the question of whether there is life after death. It is described as being “out of the scope” of scientific inquiry [1]. The tools of science, such as observation with eyes or ears, and measurement with devices, cannot be used to explore the realm beyond death [1].
• Scientific Neutrality: From a scientific perspective, it can’t be said that there is life after death, but it also can’t be said definitively that there is no life after death. The sources state that someone who claims there is no life after death is not being scientific, they are expressing a personal opinion [1]. The correct scientific attitude would be to acknowledge the uncertainty until a sure way to get salvation is found [1].
• Denial vs. Acceptance: The sources suggest that a scientific attitude may lead to a denial of life after death until there is proof, but this attitude is difficult to maintain when the matter is deeply connected to one’s life. In such cases, one may be forced to either accept or deny the existence of an afterlife, even without proof [1].
• Doubt and its Limitations: The source explains that doubt about life after death can be like poison because a family attitude cannot be based on doubt. The source makes an analogy that when dealing with a person, one cannot remain in doubt about whether the person is honest or not, one must either consider them honest or dishonest [1].
• Need for a Broader Perspective: Because science has its limits, the source suggests seeking help from the heart when it comes to questions that science cannot address [2]. This indicates a need to go beyond scientific inquiry when dealing with fundamental questions of existence and life after death.

In summary, the sources propose that while a scientific attitude is important, it has limitations, especially in existential questions like the existence of an afterlife. The sources suggest that scientific neutrality is crucial, and that one must not deny or accept an idea just because there is no scientific proof [1].

Moral Life and the Afterlife

The sources emphasize a strong connection between beliefs about life after death and one’s moral life, noting that these beliefs profoundly influence actions and decisions [1]. Here’s a breakdown of how the sources discuss moral life:

• Impact of Beliefs on Actions: The sources state that the actions taken in life are directly influenced by whether a person believes this life is the only one, or if they believe in a subsequent life where they will be held accountable [1]. For instance, if a person believes this life is the only one, their actions and attitudes will be very different from someone who believes in an afterlife where they will have to give an account of their present life [1].
• Moral Decisions and Consequences: According to the sources, the question of life after death is not just philosophical, it has a very deep connection with our family life and moral decisions. Whether one considers this life as the first and last or believes in another life with consequences greatly influences the moral choices one makes [1]. The sources make the point that a person’s “minimum” standard of behavior will be different depending on their belief in an afterlife [2].
• The Need for Justice and Morality: The sources argue that the current world does not always provide a just system where individuals experience the full consequences of their actions [3, 4]. It’s noted that the effects of a person’s actions can last for generations, and it’s not possible for the current system to ensure that those responsible for good or bad deeds are adequately rewarded or punished [4]. The sources suggest that a second world is required where the ruling law is of domestic morality and where the full consequences of actions can be realized [5].
• Human Nature and Morality: The sources propose that human nature itself demands that there be a state where the consequences of good and evil are made visible [3]. The inherent sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice, and the capacity to do both good and bad indicate a need for a system that can properly address these moral aspects of life [3].
• Moral Responsibility: The sources highlight the moral responsibility that comes with being human [6]. A person’s choices, whether for good or bad, have consequences. The sources state that the universe does not seem designed to let individuals be completely free of responsibility for these choices and that another world is necessary to ensure there are consequences for these actions [6].
• The Limitations of the Present System: The sources suggest that the current system of law and justice in the world is not capable of fully addressing the moral implications of human actions [4]. They point out that the repercussions of a person’s actions can be far-reaching and extend beyond their lifetime [4]. This limitation indicates the necessity for a system beyond the current one to provide justice [4].
• Rewards and Punishments: According to the sources, in the present world the good and bad deeds of an individual often go without appropriate reward or punishment. Therefore, another world is necessary for a system where justice can be done. In this world, those who did good will be rewarded, and those who did evil will be punished in full measure [5]. The sources state that the current system of law does not have the capacity to deliver full justice [4].
• Focus on Truth: In this other world, the sources indicate that the focus will be on truth and not on worldly measures such as wealth [5]. This emphasis on truth as the primary measure of value and moral standing is a contrast to the current world where material success may be prioritized [5].

In summary, the sources present a view that moral life is inextricably linked to beliefs about life after death. The concept of an afterlife provides a framework for understanding moral responsibility, the consequences of actions, and the need for ultimate justice.

Human Nature, Morality, and the Afterlife

The sources discuss human nature by exploring its inherent qualities, its relationship to morality, and its implications for the concept of an afterlife. Here’s an overview of how the sources address human nature:

• Dual Nature of Humans: The sources describe human nature as having a dual aspect, capable of both good and evil [1]. It’s noted that humans have the capacity to do good, as well as the capacity to do bad, and they are aware of the difference [1]. This awareness includes an understanding of etiquette, and the consequences of both good and bad [1].
• Innate Sense of Morality: According to the sources, human nature strongly demands that the consequences of good and evil be made visible, just as the immediate results of actions are visible in this world [1]. The sources suggest an innate sense of justice and a desire for accountability [1]. This sense is reflected in the concepts of truth, lies, oppression, justice, right, wrong, kindness, ungratefulness, trust, and betrayal [1].
• Moral Responsibility: The sources emphasize that humans are morally responsible for their actions [1]. They argue that the universe does not seem designed to allow individuals to be completely free of responsibility for their choices [1]. The actions of human beings have moral implications, and there is an expectation that those actions will have consequences [1-3].
• The Need for Justice: The sources argue that human nature demands justice. The desire for justice is not fully satisfied in the present world, where it is not always possible to see the full consequences of actions [1, 2]. The sources suggest that this need for justice is a part of human nature and it is not fully addressed by the current system [2, 4].
• The consequences of actions can extend far beyond a person’s lifetime, and a just system requires the full results to be visible [1, 2]. This includes both the good and bad impacts of an individual’s choices [1].
• The current system is limited in its capacity to deliver complete justice and accountability, so a second system is needed where actions can be addressed justly [2, 4].
• Connection to the Afterlife: The sources connect the concept of human nature to the belief in an afterlife, suggesting that the existence of moral qualities and a desire for justice point toward a need for a system beyond the current world [3-6]. The sources argue that there must be a place or time where the good deeds are rewarded and the bad deeds are punished fully [2, 5].
• The human intellect and nature demand a state where all actions have their consequences [4].
• The sources mention that a second world is needed to satisfy these inherent aspects of human nature [4].
• Human Fallibility: The sources also acknowledge human weaknesses, noting that these weaknesses can exacerbate the negative effects of current systems, making the need for a system beyond the current one even more significant [7].
• Limitations of Current System: The sources highlight that the present world is not designed to handle the far-reaching effects of human actions [2]. The limitations in the current system make the need for an afterlife more apparent [2, 4].
• The consequences of an action can span generations, making it impossible for the current system to ensure justice [2].
• The current system is considered to be insufficient for dealing with the full impact of human choices and actions [2].

In summary, the sources portray human nature as complex, with an innate capacity for both good and evil, and a deep-seated sense of morality and justice. They propose that this inherent nature requires a system beyond the current world to fully address the consequences of human actions, leading to the need for the concept of an afterlife. The duality of human nature is critical, as it is described as having both the capacity for good and evil, and this duality drives the necessity for justice and an afterlife.

Divine Justice and the Afterlife

The sources discuss divine justice primarily in the context of the limitations of earthly justice and the necessity of an afterlife to fulfill the demands of fairness and morality [1-3]. Here’s a breakdown of how divine justice is presented in the sources:

• Limitations of earthly justice: The sources argue that the current systems of law and justice in the world are inadequate to ensure that individuals receive the full consequences of their actions [2, 3]. The impacts of human actions can be far-reaching and extend beyond their lifetimes, making it impossible for earthly systems to deliver complete and appropriate justice [2]. For example, the actions of someone who starts a war can affect millions of people for generations [2, 4]. Similarly, those who have guided humanity toward good may have a positive impact for generations [2]. The current systems are not capable of fully rewarding the good or punishing the bad in proportion to the impact of those actions [2].
• Need for a second world: The sources propose that a second world is needed to ensure the implementation of divine justice [3]. This world would have a system of domestic morality that would operate with a different set of laws than the present world [3]. This world is needed because the present world is not enough for the full implementation of divine justice [3]. In this second world, the actions of humans will be fully accounted for [3].
• Full accounting of actions: According to the sources, in the second world, there will be a complete record of every person’s actions [3]. In this world, individuals will be fully aware of all of their actions and the full consequences of those actions [3, 5]. The sources describe a scene where every action is laid bare, and no one can hide the impacts of their deeds [5]. Even the body parts like hands, feet, and eyes will reveal how they have been used, and every witness that was affected by the actions will be present [5].
• Rewards and punishments: The sources indicate that divine justice will involve the appropriate reward and punishment for every action, in a way that is impossible in the current system [3, 5]. Those who have done good will be fully rewarded, and those who have done bad will be fully punished, and that process will occur on such a large scale that it cannot be compared to what is possible in the current world [5]. The rewards and punishments will be proportionate to the actions performed, ensuring that justice is complete and fair [5]. The consequences of both good and evil will be fully realized without the limitations of death, sickness, or old age interrupting the experience of those consequences [5].
• Emphasis on Truth: In the context of divine justice, truth is the primary measure of value and moral standing [3]. Unlike the present world where wealth and power are often considered, in the second world the only important thing is truth [3]. The sources suggest that this focus on truth is essential for divine justice to be realized.
• Human intellect and nature: The sources mention that both human intellect and nature demand that there should be a state where all actions receive appropriate consequences [3]. This indicates that the concept of divine justice is not arbitrary, but is a response to the inherent moral understanding and sense of justice that is part of human nature [3, 6, 7]. The sources emphasize that the human desire for justice is not fully satisfied in the present world, and it needs to be addressed in another world.

In summary, the sources present a concept of divine justice that is necessary because of the limitations of earthly justice. Divine justice will be implemented in a second world where all actions will be accounted for, and individuals will receive the full consequences of their actions, either as rewards or punishments. This system will be based on truth, and it will align with the innate human desire for justice.

Afterlife Beliefs and Moral Choices

Belief in an afterlife significantly shapes moral choices by influencing a person’s understanding of accountability and the consequences of their actions [1]. The sources emphasize that whether one believes in an afterlife or not will lead to different attitudes and actions in the present life [1, 2].

Here’s how the sources explain the impact of belief in an afterlife on moral choices:

• Different attitudes: The belief that this life is the only one leads to a different attitude than the belief that there is another life after death where one will be held accountable for their actions [1]. If a person believes that there is no life after death, they may be more inclined to focus on immediate gratification and may not consider the long-term moral consequences of their actions [1]. Conversely, if a person believes that their actions will be judged in an afterlife, they are more likely to act in a way that is morally upright [1].
• Moral responsibility and accountability: The belief in an afterlife introduces the idea that one will have to give an account of their present life [1]. If a person believes their actions will have consequences beyond this life, they are more likely to act responsibly and consider the moral implications of their choices [1, 3]. The sources suggest that the idea of an afterlife is essential to ensure that individuals are held accountable for their good and bad actions, as the present world does not always allow for a full accounting [1, 2, 4, 5].
• Motivation for actions: The belief in an afterlife provides a framework for understanding the true profit and loss of one’s actions [1]. The sources explain that those who believe in an afterlife see the present life as a journey toward a destination where they will be judged, and this belief significantly influences their motivation [1]. They will be concerned with their actions as they will be judged in the afterlife and this impacts how they make moral choices [1].
• Impact on moral decision-making: The belief in an afterlife affects how people make decisions in their moral lives [1]. The sources explain that the way a person acts will depend on whether they think of this life as the only one or as a precursor to another life [6]. If they believe in an afterlife, they are more likely to make decisions that align with the values of truth, justice, and morality [1, 3].
• Concept of reward and punishment: The belief in an afterlife introduces the idea that there will be a system of rewards and punishments based on one’s actions in this life [3, 7]. If a person believes that there will be consequences for their actions after they die, they are more likely to be motivated to act in ways that they believe will lead to a positive outcome in the afterlife [1, 7]. The sources describe that in this system there will be a full accounting of every person’s actions and that both rewards and punishments will be carried out fully and fairly [3, 7].
• Just and moral actions: The sources indicate that belief in an afterlife influences whether a person chooses to work towards justice, morality and good behavior [1, 3, 7]. Those who believe in an afterlife are motivated to act in a way that will bring about positive consequences in the afterlife [1, 3, 7].
• Emphasis on long-term consequences: The belief in an afterlife shifts the focus from short-term outcomes to long-term consequences [1, 3]. Those who believe in an afterlife will take a longer-term perspective and realize that the real profit and loss is not in the first stage of the journey but in the last stage [1]. The belief in the afterlife helps people look beyond the immediate moment and consider the impact of their actions on the bigger picture [1, 3, 7].

In summary, the sources suggest that belief in an afterlife strongly influences moral choices by providing a framework for accountability, justice, and long-term consequences. The belief in an afterlife emphasizes that moral choices extend beyond immediate results in this world and that there are future repercussions for both good and bad actions, therefore it is a critical factor in guiding moral behavior [1, 3, 7].

Afterlife Beliefs and Moral Action

The text illustrates how differing beliefs about the afterlife dramatically impact one’s actions, moral framework, and understanding of justice and consequences [1]. Here’s how:

• Differing Actions Based on Beliefs: The text provides the example of two travelers going to Mumbai to demonstrate how beliefs about the afterlife change a person’s behavior. The traveler who believes the journey ends in Mumbai will focus solely on the immediate trip, while the traveler who believes the Mumbai trip is followed by another journey where they will be judged, will prepare for both parts of their journey. This example illustrates that belief in an afterlife leads to different priorities and actions [1].
• Moral Implications: The text argues that the belief in an afterlife shapes moral behavior because if a person believes they will be held accountable for their actions after death, they are more likely to act morally in their present life [1]. This is because the belief in a future reckoning creates a sense of accountability that extends beyond earthly consequences [1]. Conversely, someone who does not believe in an afterlife might feel less constrained by moral considerations, as they would not believe they would be judged for their actions after death. The text suggests that the way people approach their moral life is informed by what they think about life after death [1, 2].
• Understanding of Justice and Consequences: The text emphasizes that earthly systems of justice are insufficient to address the full scope of consequences for both good and bad actions [3-5]. It argues that because of this, belief in an afterlife is required for true justice to be achieved. For example, the text notes that the actions of tyrannical leaders who cause immense suffering cannot be adequately punished in this world, and similarly, those who have guided humanity toward good cannot be fully rewarded [5]. The text notes that, “the present system of Eknath is running under which it is not possible in any way that they can get punishment equal to their crime” [5]. This highlights the text’s argument that the belief in an afterlife is necessary for a complete and just system of consequences.
• Influence on Attitude Toward Truth: The text states that the attitude adopted towards truth in life is similar to the acceptance or denial of an afterlife [2]. This means that if one has a skeptical or doubtful view of the afterlife, they may also be skeptical towards truth in this life [2]. This implies that belief in an afterlife is not just a metaphysical consideration but has implications for one’s broader worldview and approach to truth and morality.
• The inadequacy of this world: The text uses examples of positive and negative actions that reverberate across generations to illustrate that the current world is not enough for people to be fully rewarded or punished for the consequences of their actions [5-7]. The text notes that “whatever a person does in a few years of his life, the chain of its repercussion is so long and continues for such a long time that the consequences of that only are not fulfilled. Thousands of years of life are required to reap the full results and it is impossible for a man under the current captaincy to live that long” [5]. This is used to illustrate how the belief in an afterlife accounts for a system that can bring about adequate consequences.

In summary, the text illustrates that differing beliefs about the afterlife lead to significantly different actions, moral frameworks, and understandings of justice. The belief in an afterlife provides a basis for accountability and moral behavior, while a lack of such belief might diminish these considerations. The text suggests that the current world is inadequate to fully account for the consequences of one’s actions, and that faith in an afterlife is needed to complete the chain of actions and consequences.

Justice and the Afterlife

The text uses several examples to illustrate its arguments about consequences, both in this life and in the afterlife. These examples emphasize the idea that actions have far-reaching effects, and that true justice requires a system where these effects are fully accounted for [1-3].

Here are some key examples from the text:

• The traveler to Mumbai: This example compares two people traveling to Mumbai [1]. One believes that the journey ends in Mumbai, while the other believes that Mumbai is just a stop on a longer journey to a place where they will be judged. The person who believes their journey ends in Mumbai will only focus on that part of the journey, while the person who believes in an afterlife will prepare for both parts of their journey. This illustrates how the belief in an afterlife changes a person’s actions and focus [1].
• The Arsonist: The text describes a person who sets fire to another person’s house [4]. The text argues that the consequences of this action should extend beyond the immediate damage of the fire, to include the impact on the future generations of the family. If the arsonist is caught and punished, that punishment is unlikely to be equal to the damage that they caused to the family. This example highlights how the justice system in this world is often inadequate to provide full consequences for harmful actions [4].
• Tyrannical leaders: The text discusses individuals who use their power to oppress and harm others [3]. It uses the example of leaders who start wars, suppress countries, and force millions to live miserable lives. The text poses the question of whether those leaders can ever receive a punishment in this world that is equal to the harm that they caused to so many people. This example argues that no earthly punishment is sufficient to rectify the extensive harm caused by such people, and that there must be an afterlife to account for their actions [3].
• Benefactors of humanity: The text contrasts the examples of destructive leaders with those who have guided humanity toward good [3]. The text argues that there is no system in place in this world that can fully reward the people who have shown the way to millions of people for centuries. This example shows that the positive impact of actions can also extend far beyond one’s lifetime, and the current system does not have the capacity to offer appropriate rewards [3].
• The rainy season and the dead land: The text uses the example of the rainy season revitalizing dead land to illustrate the possibility of life after death. It describes how lifeless land springs back to life during the rainy season, with plants and life suddenly emerging [5]. The text suggests that just as life returns to the land after appearing dead, so too will humans be brought back to life. This example uses a natural phenomenon as evidence to prompt consideration of how the afterlife could be possible [5].

These examples illustrate the text’s broader arguments about consequences by:

• Demonstrating the Limitations of This World: The examples highlight how the current world’s systems and timelines are insufficient to fully account for all the consequences of human actions [1, 3, 4].
• Showing the Need for a Complete System of Justice: The examples illustrate the necessity of a system, such as an afterlife, where actions can have their full consequences [1, 3].
• Emphasizing the Long-Term Impact of Actions: The examples underscore the idea that actions have repercussions that extend beyond a person’s lifetime [1-3].
• Illustrating the Necessity of a Moral Framework: The examples emphasize that a moral framework that includes the concept of an afterlife is necessary to achieve true justice and to account for all actions, good and bad [1, 3].

In summary, the text uses examples of travelers, arsonists, leaders, and nature to argue that the consequences of actions are not fully realized in this world. It suggests that a system is needed to account for both the immediate and far-reaching impacts of human choices, providing a strong argument for the necessity of an afterlife.

Faith and the Afterlife

The text uses faith as a necessary component for understanding the concept of an afterlife, particularly when science cannot provide answers [1]. Here’s how faith plays a role in the text’s reasoning:

• Faith as a Complement to Science: The text acknowledges that science cannot provide definitive answers about the existence or nature of an afterlife [1]. It states that we lack the “eyes” and “ears” to perceive beyond death, and that scientific tools are unable to prove or disprove its existence [1]. Given this limitation, the text suggests turning to faith, using the “heart” to understand such matters [2]. This implies that faith fills the gap where scientific knowledge ends.
• Heart as a Source of Understanding: The text proposes that when scientific knowledge is lacking, one should turn to their “heart” for guidance [2]. This suggests that intuition, personal conviction, and faith are valid ways to understand the possibility of an afterlife, alongside or in place of empirical data. The text indicates that when dealing with questions related to life, and death, consulting both reason and faith (“Naseer” and “this matter”) may be appropriate [1].
• Acceptance vs. Doubt: The text argues that in matters of life, death, and the possibility of an afterlife, one cannot remain in a state of doubt [1]. It uses the analogy of dealing with a person whose honesty is not known, stating that when it comes to matters of consequence, one must either accept or deny, as doubt can be “poison” [1]. This implies that faith is an active choice to accept or deny, that will ultimately influence one’s actions and understanding of the world.
• Faith as a Basis for Moral Action: The text highlights the significance of the belief in an afterlife for shaping moral behavior [3]. It argues that if a person believes there is an afterlife where they will be held accountable for their actions, they will act differently in their current life [3]. The text suggests that faith in an afterlife provides a moral compass that guides actions, as a sense of accountability goes beyond this life. The text states that the way people approach their moral life is informed by what they think about life after death [3].
• Divine Justice and the Quran: The text presents the Quran as a source of support for the concept of an afterlife. It states that according to the Quran, the current world will be destroyed, and a new system will be created where all humans will be judged for their actions [4]. The text suggests that this belief is not just about a reward or punishment but about a fundamental aspect of divine justice, where all actions are accounted for. The text implies that faith in the Quran’s teachings provides a basis for believing in an afterlife and the full accounting of deeds.
• Natural Signs as Evidence of the Divine: While not scientific proof, the text uses natural phenomena to suggest the possibility of an afterlife [5]. It draws a parallel between the revitalization of dead land during the rainy season and the possibility of resurrection, arguing that if life can emerge from apparent death in nature, then it could be possible for humans [5]. The text suggests that these signs in nature should evoke a sense of wonder and faith that affirms the possibility of an afterlife.

In summary, the text doesn’t present faith as an alternative to reason, but as a necessary complement to it. Faith is portrayed as a source of knowledge and understanding, especially in areas where scientific inquiry cannot reach. It provides a foundation for accepting the possibility of an afterlife, which in turn influences moral behavior and one’s understanding of justice and consequences. The text uses faith in conjunction with reason, intuition, and signs in nature to make its case for the necessity of an afterlife.

Afterlife Beliefs and Justice

The text provides several examples to illustrate how beliefs about the afterlife impact actions and the understanding of justice and consequences [1]. Here are some of the key examples:

• The Two Travelers: The text uses the analogy of two travelers going to Mumbai [1]. One traveler believes that the journey ends in Mumbai, while the other believes that after reaching Mumbai, they will have to travel across the ocean to another country where they will be judged [1]. The first traveler focuses solely on the immediate trip to Mumbai, while the second traveler prepares for both parts of the journey [1]. This illustrates that beliefs about the afterlife drastically change a person’s focus, priorities, and actions [1].
• Moral Behavior: The text states that if a person believes there is an afterlife where they will be held accountable for their actions, they are more likely to act morally in their present life [1]. This is because the belief in a future reckoning creates a sense of accountability that extends beyond earthly consequences [1]. Conversely, someone who does not believe in an afterlife might feel less constrained by moral considerations because they do not believe their actions will be judged after death [1]. This highlights how beliefs about the afterlife are directly tied to moral decision-making and behavior [1].
• Actions of Tyrannical Leaders: The text argues that earthly systems of justice are inadequate to address the full scope of consequences for both good and bad actions [2]. The text provides the example of tyrannical leaders who cause immense suffering and whose actions affect generations, pointing out that it is impossible for them to receive punishment equal to the harm they have caused during their lifetimes [2]. The text notes that “the present system of Eknath is running under which it is not possible in any way that they can get punishment equal to their crime” [2]. This suggests that the belief in an afterlife is necessary for true justice to be achieved, where individuals are held fully accountable for their actions [2].
• Actions of Benevolent Guides: The text states that those who have guided humanity towards good and whose decisions benefit countless people for centuries cannot receive full reward in their lifetimes [2]. It emphasizes that the positive impact of their actions continues long after their death. This serves as another example of how the current world is limited in its ability to provide complete reward or punishment for the scope of actions and consequences, which is why a system in the afterlife is needed [2].
• The Inadequacy of the Present System: The text argues that “whatever a person does in a few years of his life, the chain of its repercussion is so long and continues for such a long time that the consequences of that only are not fulfilled. Thousands of years of life are required to reap the full results and it is impossible for a man under the current captaincy to live that long” [2]. This serves as a further example of how the current world is unable to provide a system in which the full consequences of human actions can be accounted for, illustrating the need for a system of justice beyond this life [2].
• Arsonist Example: The text uses the example of a person who sets fire to another person’s house, noting that while punishment might be meted out in this world, that punishment might not be equal to the damage done [3]. The text argues that if all conditions are not met (such as apprehending the arsonist or the court being able to determine the extent of the damage) the consequences for their actions might either be invisible, or incomplete, and the arsonist might live and enjoy their life despite their actions [3]. This example illustrates how earthly justice systems may not fully account for the consequences of actions, in contrast to what might be achievable in an afterlife [3].

In summary, these examples demonstrate that beliefs about the afterlife significantly impact how individuals live their lives, how they understand moral responsibility, and how they view the concept of justice. The text suggests that the idea of an afterlife is necessary for a complete system of consequences that transcends the limitations of the present world.

Afterlife Beliefs and Human Action

The text uses several examples to illustrate its central argument that beliefs about the afterlife profoundly impact actions, moral frameworks, and the understanding of justice and consequences [1]. Here are key examples from the text:

• The Two Travelers [1]: This analogy compares two people traveling to Mumbai. One believes the journey ends in Mumbai, while the other believes that Mumbai is just a stop before continuing on to another destination where they will be judged [1]. The first traveler only focuses on the immediate trip, while the second prepares for both parts of the journey. This example demonstrates how differing beliefs about the afterlife change a person’s priorities, actions, and overall approach to life [1].
• Moral Behavior [1]: The text argues that a person who believes in an afterlife with accountability is more likely to act morally in their present life [1]. This belief creates a sense of responsibility that extends beyond earthly consequences [1]. Conversely, someone who does not believe in an afterlife may feel less constrained by moral considerations because they do not believe there will be a future reckoning [1]. This example illustrates that beliefs about the afterlife directly influence moral decision-making and behavior [1].
• Actions of Tyrannical Leaders [2, 3]: The text points out that earthly systems of justice cannot adequately punish leaders who inflict immense suffering [3]. These leaders may not face consequences equal to the harm they have caused in their lifetimes [3]. The text states that “the present system of Eknath is running under which it is not possible in any way that they can get punishment equal to their crime” [3]. This highlights the idea that a belief in an afterlife is necessary for true justice to be achieved, where individuals are fully accountable for their actions [2, 3].
• Actions of Benevolent Guides [3]: The text also considers the opposite, stating that those who have guided humanity towards good and whose decisions have benefitted countless people throughout history cannot receive full reward in their lifetimes [3]. The positive impact of their actions continues long after they die. This illustrates how the current world is limited in its capacity to provide complete reward or punishment for the scope of actions and consequences, emphasizing the need for a system of justice beyond this life [3].
• The Inadequacy of the Present System [3]: The text notes that “whatever a person does in a few years of his life, the chain of its repercussion is so long and continues for such a long time that the consequences of that only are not fulfilled. Thousands of years of life are required to reap the full results and it is impossible for a man under the current captaincy to live that long” [3]. This highlights the text’s argument that the present world cannot provide a system in which the full consequences of human actions can be accounted for, indicating the necessity for an afterlife [3].
• Arsonist Example [4]: The text discusses a person who sets fire to another’s house [4]. While the arsonist might receive some punishment in this world, the text points out that the punishment may not be equal to the damage done [4]. If certain conditions are not met (such as identifying and convicting the arsonist or the court understanding the full extent of the damage) the consequences may be invisible, incomplete, and the arsonist may continue to enjoy their life [4]. This illustrates how earthly justice systems might not fully account for the consequences of actions, and it emphasizes the need for an afterlife system that can provide complete justice [4].

In summary, these examples collectively illustrate the text’s argument that beliefs about the afterlife are fundamental in shaping human behavior, moral considerations, and views on justice [1]. The text suggests that the idea of an afterlife is essential for a comprehensive system of consequences that goes beyond the limitations of the present world [3].

Afterlife and Moral Action

The author connects the belief in an afterlife to moral action by arguing that it significantly influences how people behave and make decisions [1, 2]. The text suggests that a belief in an afterlife where one will be held accountable for their actions creates a sense of responsibility that extends beyond earthly consequences, thus encouraging moral behavior [1].

Here’s a more detailed breakdown of how the author makes this connection:

• Accountability and Moral Behavior: The text proposes that if individuals believe their actions will be judged in an afterlife, they are more likely to act morally in their present life [1]. This is because the belief in a future reckoning introduces a powerful incentive for ethical conduct [1, 2]. Conversely, the text suggests that someone who does not believe in an afterlife may feel less constrained by moral considerations, since they do not think their actions will be judged after death [1, 3].
• The Two Travelers Analogy: The text uses the analogy of two travelers going to Mumbai to highlight how differing beliefs about the afterlife change a person’s perspective and actions [1]. One traveler believes the journey ends in Mumbai, while the other believes that after reaching Mumbai, they will have to travel to another country where they will be judged [1]. The first traveler only focuses on the immediate trip, while the second prepares for both parts of the journey. This illustrates that beliefs about the afterlife drastically affect a person’s priorities, and therefore their behavior [1].
• Consequences and Justice: The author argues that earthly systems of justice are often inadequate to address the full scope of consequences for both good and bad actions [4-6]. The text gives the example of tyrannical leaders who cause immense suffering and whose actions affect generations, noting that it is impossible for them to receive a punishment equal to the harm they have caused during their lifetimes [6]. Similarly, the text points out that individuals who have positively impacted humanity for centuries also cannot receive full reward in their lifetime [6]. Because the current system is not capable of fully delivering justice, the text implies that the belief in an afterlife becomes necessary, to ensure that all actions, good and bad, are ultimately accounted for [6, 7].
• The Inadequacy of the Present System: The text emphasizes that the repercussions of human actions can extend far beyond a person’s lifetime, stating that “whatever a person does in a few years of his life, the chain of its repercussion is so long and continues for such a long time that the consequences of that only are not fulfilled” [6]. It is argued that the current world is unable to provide a system in which the full consequences of human actions can be accounted for, which is why a system in the afterlife is needed to provide complete justice [6, 7].
• The Arsonist Example: The text provides the example of an arsonist, arguing that if the conditions of earthly justice are not fully met (such as if the arsonist is not caught, or if the court is unable to assess the full extent of the damage), they may not receive a punishment that matches their actions, and may even continue to live and enjoy their life [5]. This example serves as further evidence that the earthly system of justice may not fully account for consequences, in contrast to what might be possible in an afterlife [5].

In summary, the text connects the belief in an afterlife to moral action by suggesting that the belief in future accountability encourages individuals to behave ethically [1]. The limitations of the present world, where consequences for actions may be incomplete or unseen, further highlight the need for an afterlife where true justice can be achieved [6, 7]. The text implies that without a belief in an afterlife, there is less incentive to behave morally because the consequences of one’s actions may not be fully realized in this life [1, 3].

Afterlife and Moral Action

The author connects the belief in an afterlife to moral action by arguing that it significantly influences how people behave and make decisions [1, 2]. The text suggests that a belief in an afterlife where one will be held accountable for their actions creates a sense of responsibility that extends beyond earthly consequences, thus encouraging moral behavior [1].

Here’s a more detailed breakdown of how the author makes this connection:

• Accountability and Moral Behavior: The text proposes that if individuals believe their actions will be judged in an afterlife, they are more likely to act morally in their present life [1]. This is because the belief in a future reckoning introduces a powerful incentive for ethical conduct [1, 2]. Conversely, the text suggests that someone who does not believe in an afterlife may feel less constrained by moral considerations, since they do not think their actions will be judged after death [1, 3].
• The Two Travelers Analogy: The text uses the analogy of two travelers going to Mumbai to highlight how differing beliefs about the afterlife change a person’s perspective and actions [1]. One traveler believes the journey ends in Mumbai, while the other believes that after reaching Mumbai, they will have to travel to another country where they will be judged [1]. The first traveler only focuses on the immediate trip, while the second prepares for both parts of the journey. This illustrates that beliefs about the afterlife drastically affect a person’s priorities, and therefore their behavior [1].
• Consequences and Justice: The author argues that earthly systems of justice are often inadequate to address the full scope of consequences for both good and bad actions [4-6]. The text gives the example of tyrannical leaders who cause immense suffering and whose actions affect generations, noting that it is impossible for them to receive a punishment equal to the harm they have caused during their lifetimes [6]. Similarly, the text points out that individuals who have positively impacted humanity for centuries also cannot receive full reward in their lifetime [6]. Because the current system is not capable of fully delivering justice, the text implies that the belief in an afterlife becomes necessary, to ensure that all actions, good and bad, are ultimately accounted for [6, 7].
• The Inadequacy of the Present System: The text emphasizes that the repercussions of human actions can extend far beyond a person’s lifetime, stating that “whatever a person does in a few years of his life, the chain of its repercussion is so long and continues for such a long time that the consequences of that only are not fulfilled” [6]. It is argued that the current world is unable to provide a system in which the full consequences of human actions can be accounted for, which is why a system in the afterlife is needed to provide complete justice [6, 7].
• The Arsonist Example: The text provides the example of an arsonist, arguing that if the conditions of earthly justice are not fully met (such as if the arsonist is not caught, or if the court is unable to assess the full extent of the damage), they may not receive a punishment that matches their actions, and may even continue to live and enjoy their life [5]. This example serves as further evidence that the earthly system of justice may not fully account for consequences, in contrast to what might be possible in an afterlife [5].

In summary, the text connects the belief in an afterlife to moral action by suggesting that the belief in future accountability encourages individuals to behave ethically [1]. The limitations of the present world, where consequences for actions may be incomplete or unseen, further highlight the need for an afterlife where true justice can be achieved [6, 7]. The text implies that without a belief in an afterlife, there is less incentive to behave morally because the consequences of one’s actions may not be fully realized in this life [1, 3].

Science, Religion, and the Afterlife

The author contrasts scientific and religious perspectives on the afterlife by highlighting their differing approaches to the question and the types of evidence they consider valid [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the contrast:

• Scientific Perspective:
• The author states that, from a scientific viewpoint, the question of whether there is life after death is “absolutely out of the scope” of science [1]. Science, according to the text, lacks the tools or methods to investigate this question, noting that “we do not have those eyes with which we can peep beyond the border of death” [1].
• The author mentions that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an afterlife [1]. Therefore, someone who claims “in the name of science that there is no life after death” is speaking unscientifically [1].
• The text suggests that a proper scientific attitude would be to remain agnostic on the issue until a reliable method for investigating it is found [1].
• The scientific approach, as described, emphasizes empirical evidence and verifiable methods, which are currently unavailable for questions about the afterlife.
• Religious Perspective:
• The author suggests that when science cannot provide an answer, one should seek help from the heart, and that religion, specifically the Quran, can provide insight [2, 3].
• The religious perspective, as described in the text, asserts the existence of an afterlife as a matter of faith and divine revelation. The Quran, in this context, suggests that there will be another system after the destruction of the present world, where all humans will be resurrected and judged for their actions [3].
• The text indicates that in this afterlife, a full accounting of each person’s actions will be made, and that this system is intended to provide complete justice where the current world cannot [3, 4]. This includes rewards for good and punishment for evil [4].
• The religious view, unlike the scientific one, is not based on empirical evidence, but on faith and the conviction that the universe operates according to a divine plan and includes an afterlife where justice will be served.
• The limitations of each perspective:
• The text acknowledges the limitations of the scientific approach in dealing with questions about the afterlife, as science does not have the tools to verify claims related to it.
• The author also implies that relying solely on the scientific approach might be insufficient for addressing questions about the meaning of life and justice, particularly because “family attitude can never be based on doubt” [1].
• The text implies that the religious view offers a framework for understanding the purpose of life and the need for ultimate justice that extends beyond the limitations of this world.

In summary, the text contrasts science and religion by showing that they operate under different epistemological frameworks, particularly in addressing the question of an afterlife. Science is portrayed as reliant on empirical observation and verification, and therefore unable to confirm or deny the existence of life after death, while religion relies on faith and divine revelation to assert that it exists. The text implies that while the scientific perspective is limited by its methods, the religious one offers a framework for understanding the need for justice and meaning beyond the earthly realm [1, 3, 4].

Faith and Action: The Afterlife’s Influence

The author ascribes a significant role to faith in determining one’s actions, particularly in relation to the belief in an afterlife [1, 2]. The text emphasizes that whether one believes in an afterlife profoundly influences their behavior, moral framework, and understanding of justice [1]. Here’s how the author connects faith and action:

• Faith as a Foundation for Moral Behavior: The author argues that if an individual believes in an afterlife where they will be held accountable, they are more likely to act morally in their present life [1]. This is because the belief in future judgment creates a powerful incentive for ethical conduct [1, 2]. Conversely, if one does not believe in an afterlife, they may feel less constrained by moral considerations, as they do not think their actions will be judged after death [1]. The text suggests that “the whole philosophy of our story is based on this question” of life after death, which highlights the fundamental role of faith in shaping moral attitudes [1].
• Faith in the Inadequacy of Earthly Justice: The text notes that earthly systems of justice are often inadequate, as they cannot fully address the consequences of actions, whether good or bad [2, 3]. The text emphasizes that “whatever a person does in a few years of his life, the chain of its repercussion is so long and continues for such a long time that the consequences of that only are not fulfilled. Thousands of years of life are required to reap the full results,” and that it is impossible to have such long lives in the present system [3]. Therefore, faith in an afterlife where true justice will be served becomes essential [2, 3].
• Faith as a Source of Meaning: The author suggests that when science cannot provide answers about the afterlife, one should turn to their heart and to religion, specifically the Quran [2, 4]. The religious view, as presented in the text, asserts the existence of an afterlife based on faith and divine revelation [2]. This perspective offers a framework for understanding the purpose of life and the need for ultimate justice that extends beyond earthly limitations [2]. Faith, in this context, provides a sense of meaning and purpose that guides actions [2].
• Faith in the Afterlife as a Guide for Actions: The analogy of the two travelers highlights how beliefs about the afterlife change priorities and actions [1]. One traveler, believing the journey ends in Mumbai, only focuses on the immediate trip, while the other, believing in another destination after Mumbai, prepares for both parts of the journey [1]. This analogy illustrates that faith in an afterlife dramatically influences how a person lives their life, including their preparation and focus [1].
• Faith in a System of Reward and Punishment: The text emphasizes that in the afterlife, a full accounting of each person’s actions will be made, with rewards for good and punishment for evil [2, 5]. This belief in a future system of divine justice strongly encourages moral action in the present, since individuals believe they will ultimately be held accountable for their choices [5]. The author states that “the effects of man’s policies are visible in thousands of places in the world Years pass and he will be able to reap their full reward without death, sickness and old age being able to break his chain of enjoyment” and that similarly “the evils of man which have been reaching countless people in this world for thousands of years, will be rewarded with their reward. He will suffer the entire punishment without death or unconsciousness coming to save him from the pain” [5].

In summary, the author argues that faith, particularly faith in an afterlife, is a critical factor in determining one’s actions. It provides a foundation for moral behavior, offers a sense of meaning and purpose, guides priorities and preparations, and motivates actions by instilling a sense of accountability and a belief in future justice. The text suggests that faith is not just a matter of belief, but a powerful force that shapes how people live their lives.

Science and the Afterlife: An Agnostic Perspective

The author views the scientific understanding of the afterlife as limited and ultimately outside the scope of its methodology [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the author’s perspective:

• Science Lacks the Tools: The author states that science does not possess the necessary “eyes” or “ears” to perceive or gather information about the realm beyond death [1]. The author argues that science does not have a “device” to determine if something exists beyond death [1].
• Neither Proof Nor Disproof: The author emphasizes that science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of an afterlife [1]. Therefore, anyone claiming that science proves there is no life after death is not speaking scientifically [1]. According to the author, it is unscientific to claim that there is no life after death [1].
• Agnosticism as a Scientific Stance: The text suggests that the correct scientific approach would be to maintain an attitude of agnosticism until a “sure way to get salvation” or a reliable method for investigating the afterlife is discovered [1]. This suggests that science cannot make a definitive statement about the afterlife given its limitations [1].
• Limitations of Empirical Evidence: The author suggests that science relies on empirical evidence, which is not applicable to questions about the afterlife [1]. The author indicates that current scientific tools and methods cannot investigate the question of what happens after death [1].
• Science and the Limits of Understanding: The author uses the metaphor of “the kitchen of our knowledge” to describe the limits of science in understanding the afterlife [1]. This metaphor suggests that questions about life after death are beyond the current reach of scientific inquiry [1].

In summary, the author views the scientific approach as valuable for the study of the natural world but ultimately inadequate when dealing with the question of the afterlife. The author believes that science cannot offer conclusive answers about what, if anything, happens after death due to its limitations in investigating non-empirical phenomena [1]. The author suggests that other avenues of inquiry, such as faith, may be more appropriate when grappling with questions about the afterlife [2].

Divine Justice and the Quran

The Quran plays a significant role in the author’s argument, primarily as a source of authority and guidance regarding the afterlife and divine justice [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the Quran’s role:

• Providing Answers Beyond Science: The author suggests that when science is unable to provide answers about the afterlife, individuals should turn to their “heart” and to religion, specifically the Quran [1, 2]. This indicates that the Quran is presented as a source of knowledge that complements, and in some cases, surpasses the limitations of science [2, 3].
• Assertion of an Afterlife: According to the author, the Quran asserts the existence of an afterlife, where a system will be established after the destruction of the current world [1]. This is a central tenet in the author’s argument, as the belief in an afterlife is fundamental to the author’s understanding of justice and moral behavior.
• Description of Divine Justice: The author uses the Quranic perspective to emphasize that in the afterlife, there will be a full accounting of each person’s actions, with rewards for good and punishment for evil [1]. This concept is highlighted as a means to address the inadequacies of earthly justice systems [4, 5]. The Quran, in this context, provides a framework in which to understand that true and complete justice is not limited to the present world.
• Framework for Moral Behavior: The author implies that the Quran provides a basis for moral behavior [1]. The belief that one will be judged in the afterlife, as taught by the Quran, serves as a strong motivator for ethical conduct in the present life [6]. This belief shapes how individuals perceive their responsibilities and actions [6].
• A Source of Truth: The Quran is presented not just as a religious text but as a source of truth regarding the nature of reality and the human condition [1]. The author uses the Quran to support claims about the nature of the afterlife and the fairness of divine judgment.
• Counter to Skepticism: The Quran serves as a counter to those who might be skeptical about the afterlife [7]. The author uses the Quran to argue against those who believe that the current world is the only reality. The Quran’s authority provides reassurance and validation for the idea of an afterlife. The author notes that the Quran states “that whatever your intellect and your nature demand, The fruits are to be distributed and the present world which is built on the basis of speech and health will be destroyed in a certain time, after which another system will be formed in which the earth, sky and all the things will be in a different manner” [1].
• Evidence of Resurrection: The author draws on the Quran’s description of resurrection to illustrate how those who have died will be brought back to life to face their judgment [1]. This concept further reinforces the belief in an afterlife and provides an image of how divine justice will be enacted [1, 8].

In summary, the Quran plays a crucial role in the author’s argument by providing a framework for understanding the afterlife, divine justice, and the importance of moral action. It serves as a source of authority, guidance, and truth, offering answers to questions that science cannot address and providing a foundation for the author’s claims [1].

Science and the Afterlife: A Question of Methodology

The author views the scientific understanding of the afterlife as limited and ultimately outside the scope of its methodology [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the author’s perspective, drawing on the sources and our conversation history:

• Science Lacks the Tools: The author asserts that science does not have the necessary “eyes” or “ears” to perceive or gather information about the realm beyond death, nor does it have a “device” to determine if something exists beyond death [1]. This indicates a fundamental limitation in science’s ability to investigate the afterlife.
• Inability to Prove or Disprove: The author argues that science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of an afterlife [1]. Thus, any claim made in the name of science that there is no life after death is not a scientifically valid statement [1].
• Agnosticism as the Proper Scientific Stance: According to the author, the correct scientific approach would be to maintain an agnostic position regarding the afterlife, at least until a reliable method for investigating it is discovered [1]. This stance underscores the limitations of scientific inquiry in this specific area.
• Limitations of Empirical Evidence: The author implies that science, which relies on empirical evidence, is not applicable to questions about the afterlife, as current scientific tools and methods cannot investigate what happens after death [1]. This suggests that the nature of the afterlife is beyond empirical observation.
• Science and the Limits of Understanding: The author uses the metaphor of “the kitchen of our knowledge” to illustrate the limits of science in understanding the afterlife, suggesting that this topic is beyond the reach of current scientific inquiry [1].
• Alternative Avenues of Inquiry: The author proposes that when science cannot provide answers about the afterlife, individuals should turn to their heart and to religion, specifically the Quran [2, 3]. This emphasizes the author’s belief that faith offers a more appropriate means of understanding the afterlife than science [2].

In summary, the author believes that the scientific method, while valuable for understanding the natural world, is fundamentally inadequate for addressing the question of the afterlife [1]. The author believes that science cannot offer conclusive answers due to its limitations in investigating non-empirical phenomena [1]. The author indicates that other ways of knowing such as faith, and specifically the Quran, may be more appropriate for understanding this topic [2, 3].

The Limitations of Earthly Justice

The author uses several examples to illustrate the limitations of earthly justice, highlighting how it often fails to deliver appropriate consequences for both good and bad actions [1-3]. Here are the key examples:

• The Arsonist: The author describes a scenario where a person sets fire to another’s house [2]. According to the author, earthly justice may fail to fully address this crime in several ways. If the police cannot find the arsonist, the court cannot prove them guilty, or if the full extent of the damage to the family and future generations is not recognized, the arsonist may not receive a punishment equal to their crime [2]. The author notes that the arsonist may even continue to enjoy their life, while the victims suffer [2]. This example highlights how earthly justice can fail to deliver a punishment that matches the severity of the crime and how the system can be limited by practical issues of proof and understanding the long-term impacts of an action.
• The Tyrannical Leader: The author also provides the example of a leader who uses patriotism to incite wars and oppress millions of people [3]. Despite causing immense suffering, such leaders may be praised and honored during their lifetime [3]. Even if they are punished by humans, their punishment can never be equal to the harm they have caused to countless people across generations [3]. The author argues that the existing system of earthly justice is inadequate to deliver an appropriate punishment that matches the scale of the harm caused by the leader [3]. This example highlights the limitations of earthly justice in addressing crimes that have a wide impact over time, and the system’s inability to fully account for the long-term effects of a person’s actions.
• The Righteous Guide: On the other side of the coin, the author discusses individuals who have guided humanity towards good and whose decisions have benefitted countless generations [3]. According to the author, these individuals cannot receive full credit for the positive impacts of their actions in the present world [3]. The author argues that the current system does not have the scope or duration needed to give full rewards to such people, whose influence can extend over millennia [3]. This example illustrates how earthly justice fails to provide adequate rewards for acts of great good, as their influence and effects may extend beyond the scope of any earthly system. The author also highlights that, under current systems, there isn’t enough time for a person to live to experience the full impact of the consequences of their actions [3].

In summary, the author’s examples illustrate that earthly justice is limited by its scope, its inability to fully assess the consequences of actions, and the practical constraints of human systems [1-3]. The author suggests that the current system is inadequate for providing justice, as it can neither fully punish those who have done immense evil nor completely reward those who have performed immense good [3]. This is why the author believes that a system of justice that extends beyond the confines of earthly existence is needed [4].

Science and the Afterlife

The author presents several arguments against purely scientific views on the afterlife, primarily focusing on the limitations of science in addressing this particular question [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the author’s arguments:

• Lack of Empirical Tools: The author contends that science lacks the necessary tools to investigate the afterlife [1]. Science relies on observation, measurement, and empirical evidence, but the author claims that the realm beyond death is not accessible through these methods [1]. The author specifically mentions the absence of “eyes” or “ears” capable of perceiving anything beyond death and further argues that there is no “device” to even ascertain if something exists there [1]. This indicates a fundamental limitation of science when investigating non-empirical phenomena.
• Inability to Prove or Disprove: According to the author, science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of an afterlife [1]. The author states that anyone claiming that science has disproven life after death is speaking unscientifically [1]. This assertion underscores the limitations of scientific inquiry in addressing questions that are beyond the scope of empirical validation.
• Agnosticism as the Scientific Stance: The author suggests that the correct scientific approach would be to maintain an attitude of agnosticism towards the afterlife [1]. The author believes that scientists should neither affirm nor deny the existence of the afterlife until a “sure way to get salvation” or a reliable method for investigating the afterlife is discovered [1]. This highlights the author’s view that science should not overstep its boundaries or make definitive claims when lacking evidence.
• Limitations of the “Kitchen of our Knowledge”: The author uses the metaphor of “the kitchen of our knowledge” to illustrate the limits of science in understanding the afterlife [1]. This metaphor suggests that questions about life after death are beyond the current reach of scientific inquiry, implying that science is confined to specific areas of investigation and lacks the capacity to address all questions about existence.
• Need for Alternative Approaches: The author posits that when science cannot provide answers about the afterlife, individuals should turn to other sources of knowledge, specifically, one’s “heart” and religion [2]. This position emphasizes the author’s belief that faith and other non-scientific approaches offer more appropriate means of understanding the afterlife [2]. The author uses the Quran to support claims about the nature of the afterlife and the fairness of divine judgment [3]. The Quran is presented as a source of truth regarding the afterlife [3].
• Scientific Attitude is Not Always Followed: The author suggests that a purely scientific attitude may not be possible to maintain for people when dealing with the question of an afterlife, as this question has a deep connection with family life and morality [1, 4]. The author notes that people are forced to either accept or deny an afterlife rather than remain in a state of doubt [1]. The author also makes the point that the consequences of one’s actions should be made visible, just as the destruction of a file has visible results [5]. The author states that human nature demands that the consequences of good and evil are made visible [5]. The author also observes that the current system is inadequate to provide true justice [6].

In summary, the author argues against purely scientific views on the afterlife by highlighting the inherent limitations of science in investigating non-empirical phenomena. The author emphasizes that science cannot provide definitive answers to questions about the afterlife and suggests that other avenues of inquiry, such as faith, may be more appropriate [1, 2]. The author’s argument rests on the idea that science has a limited scope and that other forms of knowledge are necessary to grapple with questions that lie beyond its reach [1-3].

Science, Faith, and the Afterlife

The author contrasts scientific and faith-based perspectives on the afterlife by highlighting the limitations of science in addressing questions about life after death and presenting faith, particularly through the Quran, as a more suitable means of understanding this topic. Here’s a breakdown of the author’s contrasting views:

• Scope and Methodology: The author argues that science lacks the necessary tools and methods to investigate the afterlife [1]. Science relies on empirical evidence, observation, and measurement, while the author suggests that the afterlife is beyond these methods [1]. The author uses the metaphor of not having the “eyes” or “ears” to perceive anything beyond death to emphasize this limitation [1]. In contrast, the author presents faith, particularly religious texts like the Quran, as a source of knowledge that can provide insight into the afterlife [2].
• Ability to Prove or Disprove: According to the author, science is unable to definitively prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife [1]. The author states that those who claim science has disproven life after death are speaking unscientifically [1]. The author suggests the correct scientific approach to the question of an afterlife is agnosticism [1]. However, the author believes that faith, as expressed in the Quran, can provide definite answers about the afterlife [2].
• Limitations of Empirical Inquiry: The author suggests that the empirical methods of science are inadequate to address questions about the afterlife, as they cannot investigate non-empirical phenomena [1]. The author uses the metaphor of “the kitchen of our knowledge” to illustrate the limits of science in understanding the afterlife [1]. In contrast, the author implies that faith, as expressed in the Quran, can provide truths about the afterlife that are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry [2].
• Role of the “Heart”: The author suggests that when science fails to provide answers, individuals should turn to their “heart” for guidance [3]. This indicates that the author believes intuitive or emotional understanding plays a role in determining one’s beliefs about the afterlife. The author positions this “heart” knowing as a necessary supplement to the limitations of science.
• Need for Alternative Approaches: The author proposes that when science cannot provide answers, individuals should turn to their faith [3]. Specifically, the author refers to the Quran as a source of truth about the afterlife [2]. The author also suggests that the Quran supports the idea that the fruits of good and evil actions will be distributed in the afterlife [2]. This contrasts with science which the author has noted does not have the scope to address the scale of justice required. The Quran is presented as a source of truth regarding the afterlife [2].
• Justice and Morality: The author notes that the current earthly system is inadequate to provide true justice and implies that faith is required to make sense of the inherent need for complete justice [2, 4, 5]. The author believes that a system of justice that extends beyond earthly existence is needed, as current systems cannot fully reward good or punish evil [4]. The Quran, in this case, is used to support claims about the nature of the afterlife and the fairness of divine judgment [2]. The author implies that faith can provide a framework for understanding justice, as the current system cannot provide full justice in the span of one human life [2].

In summary, the author contrasts scientific and faith-based perspectives by arguing that science is limited in its ability to investigate the afterlife due to its reliance on empirical methods. The author presents faith, particularly through the Quran, as a more appropriate means of understanding the afterlife, emphasizing its capacity to provide answers about justice and morality beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. The author suggests that the limitations of science require individuals to use faith and intuition to understand the nature of life after death.

Divine Justice and the Afterlife

The author, identified as Maudoodi in the sources [1], uses observations from the natural world and human experiences to support arguments for the existence of an afterlife and the necessity of a divine system of justice. Here’s how the author uses these elements:

• The Cycle of Life and Rebirth: The author draws a parallel between the natural cycle of death and rebirth in the world and the concept of resurrection in the afterlife [2]. The author points to the way land appears lifeless and barren during certain seasons, only to be revitalized by rain, with new life emerging from what seemed dead [2]. The author argues that just as dead plants and seeds come back to life, humans too can be resurrected after death. The author also uses the example of rain revitalizing the earth, showing the emergence of new life, and uses this as a sign for those who believe in the concept of resurrection after death [2]. This cyclical process in nature is presented as evidence that the concept of life after death is possible and aligns with the patterns of the universe.
• The Incompleteness of Earthly Justice: The author argues that the human experience of injustice in the world points to a need for a system of justice beyond the earthly realm. The author notes how those who perpetrate great evils may not receive adequate punishment in their lifetime [3]. Similarly, those who have done immense good may not receive adequate recognition or rewards within the scope of earthly existence [3]. The author notes that these leaders may live comfortably despite the harm they cause and, even when punished, earthly justice is not sufficient to match the scale of harm done [3]. These examples of the limitations of earthly justice are used to argue that a more complete and fair system must exist beyond this life to ensure all actions have fitting consequences [4]. The author claims the current system is inadequate to provide true justice [4].
• Human Nature and Moral Inclination: The author suggests that human beings have an inherent moral sense which requires that good and evil actions should have visible consequences [5]. The author believes this moral sense is part of human nature and points to a need for a system that can ensure complete justice and moral accountability [5]. The author notes that the “nature with which man is born strongly demands that just like the destruction of his file results are visible, in the same way the next PM’s result will also be visible” [5]. This is used to suggest that because human beings inherently seek a just outcome for moral actions, there must be a divine system in place to satisfy that need.
• The Limitations of Human Systems: The author argues that human-created systems of justice and reward are insufficient and limited by their nature [3]. The author points out that human systems cannot fully address the long-term consequences of actions, as the repercussions of an action can extend across generations. In contrast, the author argues for the existence of a divine system of justice which can account for the full impact of one’s actions over time and ensure a just outcome [4]. The author notes that because one’s actions can have repercussions that extend for generations, only a system outside of earthly constraints can provide justice. This is used to show the limitations of human-created systems and support a divine system of justice where every action receives proper recompense.
• The Argument from Design and Purpose: The author also hints at an argument from design, suggesting that the existence of complex systems and purpose in the universe points to a creator with wisdom. He asks why a “creature in this universe” with the ability to create and control many things would not create a system that ensured full justice [6]. The author questions why a creature with power over the universe would leave humans without a system for absolute justice [1]. This leads to the conclusion that the limitations of earthly justice point to the existence of a creator and a system of divine justice in the afterlife.

In summary, the author uses the natural world (the cycle of life and rebirth) and human experiences (the limitations of earthly justice and the innate moral sense) to argue for the existence of an afterlife. These observations are used to highlight the inadequacy of the present world in providing complete justice and to suggest that a divine system is needed to fulfill human nature and the inherent purpose of existence.

Maudoodi on Science and the Afterlife

In Maudoodi’s discussion of the afterlife, science plays a specific and limited role. Maudoodi does not see science as the primary means of understanding the afterlife but rather as a system with inherent limitations in this particular area [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the role science plays in Maudoodi’s argument:

• Science is Limited in Scope: Maudoodi asserts that science is fundamentally limited in its capacity to investigate the afterlife [1]. The author uses the metaphor of “the kitchen of our knowledge” to show that the tools and methods of scientific inquiry are not equipped to probe beyond the realm of the observable and measurable world [1].
• Lack of Empirical Tools: Science, according to Maudoodi, lacks the necessary “eyes,” “ears,” or “devices” to perceive or measure anything beyond the border of death [1]. The author argues that because science relies on empirical evidence and observation, it is unable to study the afterlife, as this is not a realm that can be accessed through these methods [1].
• Inability to Prove or Disprove: Maudoodi contends that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of life after death [1]. The author believes that any claim made in the name of science about the existence or non-existence of an afterlife is, therefore, unscientific [1].
• Agnosticism as a Scientific Stance: According to Maudoodi, the correct scientific attitude regarding the afterlife is one of agnosticism. This means science should neither affirm nor deny the existence of an afterlife until a sure way to investigate it is found [1].
• Focus on the Physical World: Maudoodi emphasizes that science is primarily concerned with the physical world and its laws. This focus limits its capacity to address moral and existential questions [1, 2]. According to the author, science is not equipped to answer questions about the purpose of life or the consequences of actions [3, 4].
• Science Cannot Address Moral Questions: Maudoodi believes that science cannot address moral questions or concerns about justice. The author argues that human nature demands that there should be a system where the consequences of good and bad actions are made fully visible, something that science is not capable of exploring [4]. The author asserts that the limitations of earthly justice, for example, point to the need for a different kind of system, beyond the scope of science [5-7].
• Science as a Starting Point: Despite its limitations, science can serve as a starting point for inquiry. Maudoodi uses the natural world to draw analogies and arguments about the possibility of life after death. The author uses the natural cycle of death and rebirth to support the concept of resurrection, demonstrating that science can still inform the discussion even while remaining limited in its capacity to study the afterlife directly [2, 8].

In summary, while Maudoodi acknowledges the value of science within its specific domain, the author believes that it is fundamentally incapable of addressing questions about the afterlife. According to Maudoodi, the limitations of scientific inquiry necessitate the use of other methods, such as faith, and the understanding of human moral and ethical needs to explore this realm [2, 6]. The author suggests that these other methods are better suited to addressing questions about justice and the consequences of good and evil, which are not within the scope of scientific inquiry [3-5]. Maudoodi primarily positions science as a tool with limited application when it comes to questions about the afterlife, requiring additional forms of knowledge for a more complete understanding [1, 2, 6].

Divine Accountability: Maudoodi’s Argument for an Afterlife

Maudoodi uses several examples to illustrate the concept of accountability after death, emphasizing that actions in this life have consequences in the afterlife. These examples highlight the limitations of earthly justice and the necessity of a divine system to ensure full accountability:

• The Traveler Analogy: Maudoodi uses the analogy of two travelers to explain different perspectives on life and accountability [1]. One traveler believes that life ends in Mumbai, where no authority can reach him [1]. This person’s actions are thus only focused on the journey to Mumbai [1]. The other traveler believes his journey continues after Mumbai, to a place where he will be held accountable for his actions [1]. This second traveler prepares not only for the journey to Mumbai, but also for the subsequent journey where he will be judged [1]. The different approaches of these travelers illustrate how the belief in an afterlife shapes one’s actions and sense of responsibility [1]. The traveler who believes in an afterlife acts with a broader sense of accountability, knowing his actions will have future consequences [1].
• The Arsonist Example: Maudoodi describes the scenario of a person who sets fire to another’s house [2]. According to the author, if earthly justice were perfect, the arsonist should receive a punishment equivalent to the damage caused, including the long-term impact on the victim’s family and future generations [2]. However, the author points out that the current justice system often fails to deliver such complete justice. The arsonist might escape punishment, receive only a light penalty, or even continue to enjoy life [2]. This example illustrates how the limitations of earthly justice require a system of accountability beyond this world [2]. The inadequacy of earthly justice highlights the necessity of an afterlife where full accountability can be ensured.
• The Tyrannical Leader Example: Maudoodi uses the example of a leader who gains power by manipulating people with false patriotism and starting wars that cause immense suffering [2, 3]. Such a leader may be praised by his people during his lifetime, despite the harm he causes [3]. Even if such a leader is punished in this life, Maudoodi argues that it will never be equal to the scale of suffering he caused [3]. The limitations of earthly justice, in this case, serve to illustrate the necessity of a system beyond this world where true accountability and proportional punishment are possible.
• The Example of Those Who Guide Humanity: The author also presents the opposite case of individuals who have guided humanity towards good [3]. These figures have had positive impacts on countless generations and continue to benefit people even after their death [3]. According to the author, it is impossible for such people to receive full rewards for their positive actions in this world [3]. The author notes that the impact of their deeds continues for generations, suggesting a need for a system outside of time’s constraints to provide adequate recompense [3]. This is used as another example of how the current system is insufficient and why there is a need for an afterlife where full reward and recognition can be granted.
• The Quranic View: The Quran is cited as a source supporting the concept of accountability [4]. According to the Quranic view, the present world will be destroyed and another system will be formed where everyone will be resurrected and held accountable for their actions [4]. In this system, there is a record of every action, and individuals will be judged fairly. This divine judgment will ensure everyone will be held accountable for their actions in their earthly lives [4, 5]. This view offers a broader perspective on accountability by incorporating a divine framework of justice, emphasizing that there will be a complete and fair accounting of one’s actions [4, 5].

In summary, Maudoodi’s examples illustrate the concept of accountability by showing how earthly systems often fail to deliver true justice. The author uses these limitations to argue for the necessity of an afterlife, where every action is accounted for and where justice is fully realized [1-4]. These examples demonstrate that a divine system of accountability is needed to address the imperfections of earthly justice.

The Afterlife’s Impact on Life: Maudoodi’s Perspective

According to Maudoodi, believing in an afterlife has significant practical implications that deeply affect how one lives and acts in the present world [1]. Here are some of these implications:

• Shaping of Attitudes and Actions: Belief in an afterlife fundamentally shapes a person’s attitudes and actions [1]. If one believes that this life is the only life, their actions will be different from those who believe in a future life where they will be held accountable [1]. This difference in belief leads to different approaches to morality, responsibility, and decision-making in daily life [1, 2].
• Moral Responsibility and Accountability: The belief in an afterlife creates a sense of moral responsibility [1]. Those who believe in accountability in the afterlife are more likely to consider the long-term consequences of their actions, knowing they will have to answer for them [1]. This accountability extends beyond the present life and into the future, shaping a person’s actions and behavior [1, 2].
• Motivation for Good Deeds: The belief in an afterlife with rewards motivates people to do good and avoid bad actions [1]. The idea that one will be rewarded for good deeds in the afterlife encourages people to live morally and ethically. Conversely, the fear of punishment in the afterlife acts as a deterrent against immoral behavior [1, 2].
• Different Approaches to Justice: Believing in an afterlife influences one’s understanding of justice. If this life is the only life, then what matters is what one can achieve in this life. However, belief in an afterlife includes the idea of a final accounting of one’s deeds in the afterlife [1]. This perspective suggests that actions in this life have consequences beyond earthly outcomes [1]. Thus, earthly justice can be viewed as imperfect, pointing to the necessity of a system of justice in the afterlife [3, 4].
• Perception of Success and Failure: The perception of success and failure is also influenced by belief in an afterlife [1]. If this life is the only life, then success is defined by what one can accomplish in their lifetime. However, in the context of an afterlife, true success includes preparing for the next life and ensuring one’s actions align with divine morality [1]. This means that worldly successes alone are not the ultimate goal, but rather a means to a more eternal goal [1, 4].
• Family Life: The question of life, things and death is deeply connected with our family life [1]. The whole philosophy of our story is based on this question [1]. If one believes that this life is the only life, their attitudes will be different than if they believe there is another life where one will have to give an account of their actions [1].
• Living with Purpose: Belief in an afterlife gives people a sense of purpose [5]. This purpose is tied to living a life that will be deemed worthy of reward in the afterlife. This purpose extends beyond earthly life and focuses on a higher goal of pleasing God or living according to divine laws [6].
• Dealing with Uncertainty: When one is faced with uncertainty regarding life and death, there is a need to consult both the mind and the heart [7]. However, when the matter is related to our life, there is no option but to accept or deny it [7].
• Need for a Complete System of Justice: The belief in an afterlife is connected to the belief that the current system of justice is incomplete [3, 4]. The author argues that there must be a system where people get the full reward of their good deeds and suffer the full consequences of their evil deeds [4, 8]. Such a system is not possible in this world [4]. This is why there is a need for an afterlife where justice can be fully realized [6].
• Understanding Human Nature: According to Maudoodi, human nature demands a system where the consequences of good and bad actions are made fully visible [3]. The current system often fails to deliver complete justice or provide adequate rewards, pointing to the need for an afterlife [3, 4]. This also suggests that belief in the afterlife stems from a deep understanding of the inadequacies of the present system to account for human action [3].
• Guidance in Life: The belief in an afterlife acts as a guide in one’s life [6]. The Quran helps in this regard [6]. It teaches that the present world, built on speech and health, will be destroyed after a certain time, and a new system will be formed where humans will be judged [6]. This belief provides guidance on how to live in this world, so that they can be successful in the next [6].

In summary, the belief in an afterlife is not merely a matter of abstract theology for Maudoodi. Instead, it deeply influences an individual’s moral, ethical, and practical choices in life. The implications are far-reaching, affecting one’s behavior, sense of responsibility, approach to justice, and overall understanding of life’s purpose [1-3].

Faith, Morality, and the Afterlife

The text connects faith and morality by asserting that belief in an afterlife directly influences one’s moral behavior and understanding of justice [1]. Here’s how this connection is developed:

• Impact on Actions: The text argues that if a person believes this life is the only life, their actions will be different than if they believe there is another life where they will be held accountable for their actions [1]. This demonstrates that faith, specifically in an afterlife, has a practical impact on shaping a person’s daily conduct and moral choices.
• Motivation for Moral Behavior: The text suggests that the belief in an afterlife with rewards motivates people to do good and avoid bad actions [1]. This implies that faith is a key motivator for adhering to moral principles. The concept of reward and punishment in the afterlife serves to reinforce ethical behavior.
• Accountability: The belief in an afterlife creates a sense of moral responsibility. People who believe in accountability in the afterlife are more likely to consider the long-term consequences of their actions, knowing they will have to answer for them [1]. This sense of accountability extends beyond earthly life.
• Limitations of Earthly Justice: According to the text, the belief in an afterlife arises partly from the limitations of earthly justice. It suggests that the current system often fails to deliver complete justice or provide adequate rewards [2, 3]. This implies that morality is not solely defined by earthly laws, but by a larger, divine system of justice.
• Moral Examples: The text illustrates its point through examples that show the limitations of earthly justice:
• Arsonist Example: The text describes a scenario of an arsonist who may not receive adequate punishment in this world [4]. This lack of earthly justice illustrates that there must be a system beyond this world to ensure justice is served.
• Tyrannical Leader Example: The text discusses leaders who cause immense suffering but are praised during their lifetime. Even if these leaders are punished, it will never be equal to the scale of suffering they caused. This illustrates the necessity of a system beyond this world for true accountability and punishment [2].
• Those Who Guide Humanity: Conversely, individuals who have guided humanity toward good cannot receive full rewards for their positive actions in this world. The impact of their deeds continues for generations, requiring a system outside time’s constraints to provide recompense [2].
• A Divine Framework for Morality: The Quran is cited as a source supporting the idea of accountability [3]. According to this view, the present world will be destroyed, and another system will be formed where people will be judged fairly. This divine judgment ensures everyone is held accountable for their actions [3]. This reinforces the idea that faith provides a comprehensive moral framework that goes beyond human-made rules.
• Human Nature and Morality: The text argues that human nature demands a system where the consequences of good and bad actions are made fully visible. [5] It is implied that humans have an innate sense of justice, which further supports the connection between faith and morality, suggesting a divine link between the two.
• Guidance in Life: The belief in an afterlife acts as a guide in one’s life. The Quran helps in this regard by teaching that the present world will be destroyed after a certain time and a new system will be formed where humans will be judged [3]. This faith-based perspective provides guidance on how to live in this world to ensure success in the next.
• Purpose in Life: The text suggests that a belief in an afterlife gives people a sense of purpose [1]. This purpose is tied to living a life that will be deemed worthy of reward in the afterlife. Thus, faith provides a framework for moral living by giving people a higher purpose beyond the present.

In summary, the text establishes a strong connection between faith and morality by arguing that belief in an afterlife is not just a theological concept, but a driving force behind moral behavior, ethical decision-making, and an understanding of justice [1, 3]. The text highlights the limitations of earthly justice and suggests that faith provides a more comprehensive framework for morality and accountability.

Afterlife Beliefs and Their Consequences

The sources indicate that different beliefs about the afterlife have significant consequences on how individuals perceive life, morality, and their actions [1]. Here are some key consequences:

• Differing Attitudes and Actions: The sources emphasize that if a person believes this life is the only life, their attitudes and actions will differ greatly from someone who believes in a life after death where they will be held accountable [1, 2]. This difference in belief leads to distinct approaches to morality, responsibility, and decision-making [1, 3]. For example, if someone believes this life is all there is, they may prioritize immediate gratification, whereas someone who believes in an afterlife may consider the long-term consequences of their actions [1].
• Moral Behavior and Accountability: Belief in an afterlife fosters a sense of moral responsibility and accountability. Those who believe they will be judged in the afterlife are more likely to act ethically, knowing they will have to answer for their actions [1, 3]. This accountability shapes their behavior and encourages them to consider the consequences of their actions. On the other hand, those who do not believe in an afterlife may not feel such a sense of responsibility [1].
• Motivation for Good and Bad Actions: The belief in rewards and punishments in the afterlife motivates people to do good and avoid bad actions [1]. The anticipation of a positive outcome in the afterlife encourages moral and ethical behavior, while the fear of punishment acts as a deterrent against immoral behavior [1]. This framework links faith directly to ethical behavior.
• Differing Perceptions of Justice: The sources suggest that belief in an afterlife shapes one’s understanding of justice. If this life is the only life, then what matters is what one can achieve in this life [1]. However, belief in an afterlife includes the idea of a final accounting of one’s deeds in the afterlife. This perspective suggests that actions in this life have consequences beyond earthly outcomes. Thus, earthly justice can be viewed as imperfect, pointing to the necessity of a system of justice in the afterlife [4, 5].
• Limitations of Earthly Justice: The sources present examples to highlight the limitations of earthly justice and support the need for an afterlife. For example, they discuss an arsonist who might not receive adequate punishment, tyrannical leaders whose crimes cannot be matched by earthly penalties, and those who do good, but whose reward cannot be fully realized in their lifetime [5, 6]. These examples suggest that there must be a system of justice beyond this world to ensure that all actions are properly accounted for.
• Different Views of Success and Failure: The perception of success and failure also varies depending on one’s belief in an afterlife [1, 2]. If this life is the only life, then success is defined by worldly achievements [1]. However, in the context of an afterlife, true success also includes preparing for the next life by aligning one’s actions with divine laws and morality [1, 7].
• Purpose in Life: Belief in an afterlife provides a sense of purpose beyond earthly existence, focusing on a higher goal [7, 8]. This purpose involves striving for a life deemed worthy of reward in the afterlife. Those who do not believe in an afterlife might lack this sense of higher purpose and instead find purpose in worldly goals [1, 7].
• Guidance in Life: The belief in an afterlife acts as a guide in one’s life [7]. The Quran helps in this regard, indicating that the present world will be destroyed after a certain time, and a new system will be formed where humans will be judged [7]. This belief provides guidance on how to live in this world, so that they can be successful in the next.
• Family Life: The sources also mention that the question of life, things, and death is closely connected with our family life [1, 3]. If one believes that this life is the only life, their attitudes will be different than if they believe there is another life where one will have to give an account of their actions [1].
• The Need for a Complete System of Justice: The belief in an afterlife is connected to the belief that the current system of justice is incomplete [5, 8]. The sources argue that there must be a system where people get the full reward of their good deeds and suffer the full consequences of their evil deeds [4, 5]. Such a system is not possible in this world. This reinforces the concept of an afterlife as a place where true justice will be realized [5, 9].
• Understanding Human Nature: The text suggests that human nature demands a system where the consequences of good and bad actions are made fully visible [4]. The current system often fails to deliver complete justice, pointing to the need for an afterlife. This implies that belief in the afterlife stems from a deep understanding of the inadequacies of the present system to account for human action [4].

In summary, the consequences of different beliefs about the afterlife are profound. They affect how people perceive the world, make decisions, and conduct themselves in daily life [1]. Whether one believes in an afterlife with accountability and justice or not shapes the individual’s moral code, sense of purpose, and their approach to success and failure [1]. The belief in an afterlife also addresses the perceived limitations of justice in this world, offering a vision of a future where true accountability is realized [5].

Afterlife Beliefs and Justice

The text uses several examples to illustrate its arguments about the consequences of different beliefs about the afterlife. These examples highlight how one’s view of the afterlife influences their actions and understanding of justice [1]. Here are the main examples used, drawing on our conversation history:

• The Traveler Analogy: The text uses the analogy of two people traveling to Mumbai, but with different beliefs about what comes after the trip [1].
• One person believes that the journey to Mumbai is their final destination, where their journey ends forever, and they will be out of reach of any earthly power [1]. This person’s actions will focus solely on the journey to Mumbai, with no concern for what comes next [1].
• The other person believes that the journey to Mumbai is just a stop, after which they will travel to another country where they will be judged according to the rules of their destination [1]. This person will not only prepare for the journey to Mumbai, but also for the journey beyond it [1]. Their actions and preparations will be shaped by the awareness of a future reckoning [1].
• This analogy illustrates that believing in an afterlife leads to a different set of priorities and actions than not believing in one. It emphasizes that the perception of a final destination shapes an individual’s behavior in the present [1].
• The Arsonist: The text presents the example of an arsonist who sets fire to someone’s house [2].
• According to the text, the immediate consequence of such an action should be that the arsonist receives equal punishment for the harm they have caused. [2]. However, the text argues that the legal system is flawed and may not always lead to this outcome [2].
• It highlights that in the current system, the arsonist might not be caught, or the court may not be able to fully comprehend the extent of the damage caused to the family and future generations [2]. The punishment, therefore, may be inadequate or non-existent [2].
• The example serves to illustrate the limitations of earthly justice and supports the idea that a more complete system of justice is needed in the afterlife to ensure that all actions receive their due consequences [2]. It shows that earthly systems of justice are not comprehensive or guaranteed to fully address wrong actions [2].
• The Tyrannical Leader: The text uses the example of leaders who gain power, use patriotism to start wars, suppress countries, and force millions of people to live miserable lives [3].
• The text notes that these leaders might be praised by people during their lives for the power they wield, despite the suffering they cause [3].
• Even if these leaders face punishment, it is very unlikely to match the immense harm they caused to so many people, their families, and the suffering that ripples through generations [3].
• This example demonstrates the limitations of earthly justice. It highlights that even if they are punished on Earth, the punishment will not match the scale of their crimes [3]. It also highlights the need for an afterlife to serve as a place where these individuals can receive punishment proportionate to their actions [3]. This is used to show the incompleteness of justice on Earth [3].
• Those Who Guide Humanity: The text also provides examples of individuals who have shown the right path to humanity, whose decisions have benefited countless generations [3].
• The text asks whether such people can ever be fully rewarded for their good actions in the present world, or if it is possible for such people to receive a reward that would equal the scope of their positive contributions to humanity [3].
• The text argues that in the current system, such individuals cannot receive the full reward for their actions due to the limited scope of earthly life.
• This serves as an example of how earthly rewards and appreciation are often insufficient for actions that have a long-term and widespread impact [3]. The point is that the present system lacks the ability to give complete justice and rewards, thus illustrating the need for an afterlife [3].
• The Mango Seed: The text also uses a metaphor of a mango seed, arguing that justice should be like a mango that grows from a mango seed [4].
• It asserts that those who sow the seeds of rights should receive the benefit of their actions [4]. This metaphor supports the idea that just actions should naturally lead to just consequences.
• This also ties into the concept of justice and how the good that people do should be rewarded and the bad should be punished. [4]
• The Rainy Season: The text gives the example of how rain brings life to dead land, as a sign of the possibility of resurrection [5]. This example uses the natural world to illustrate how life can emerge from what appears to be lifelessness, suggesting a parallel to resurrection after death [5]. It emphasizes the power of creation and suggests a greater plan is at work [5].

These examples illustrate that the consequences of one’s beliefs about the afterlife are far-reaching, impacting their understanding of justice, their actions, and their sense of purpose. The examples highlight how a belief in an afterlife shapes an individual’s behavior and their understanding of justice, reward, and punishment [1-3].

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!