Thus, like the comparisons of the clock and the book, the All-Glorious Maker, who is powerful over all things, has created causes, and so too does He create the effects. Through His wisdom, He ties the effect to the cause. Through His will,  He has determined a manifestation of the Greater Shari‘a, the Shari‘a of Creation, which consists of the divine laws concerning the ordering of all motion in the universe, and determined the nature of beings, which is only to be a mirror to that manifestation in things, and to be a reflection of it. And through His power, He has created the face of that nature which has received external existence, and has created things on that nature, and has mixed them one with the other.

Is  it  easier to  accept  this  fact,  which is  the conclusion of innumerable  most

rational proofs – in fact, is one not compelled to accept it? – or is it easier to get the physical  beings  that  you  call  causes  and  nature,  which  are  lifeless,  unconscious, created,  fashioned   and  simple,  to  provide  the  numberless  tools  and  equipment necessary for the existence  of  each thing and to carry out those matters, which are performed  wisely  and  discerningly?   Is  that  not  utterly  beyond  the  bounds  of possibility? We leave it to you to decide, with your unreasonable mind!

The unbelieving nature-worshipper replied: “Since you are asking me to be fair and reasonable, I have to confess that the mistaken way I have followed up to now is both a compounded impossibility, and extremely harmful and ugly. Anyone with even a grain of intelligence would understand from your analyses above that to attribute the act of creation to causes and nature is precluded and impossible, and that to attribute all things directly to the Necessarily Existent One is imperative and necessary. I say:

‘ALL PRAISE BE TO GOD FOR BELIEF,’ and I believe in Him. Only, I do have one doubt:

“I believe that Almighty God is the Creator, but what harm does it do to the sovereignty of His dominicality if some minor causes have a hand in the creation of insignificant matters and thereby gain for themselves a little praise and acclaim? Does it diminish His sovereignty in some way?”

T h e  A n s w e r : As we have conclusively proved in other parts of the Risale-i Nur, the mark of rulership is its rejection of interference. The most insignficant ruler or official will not tolerate the interference of his own son, even, within the sphere of his rule. The fact that, despite being Caliph, certain devout Sultans had their innocent sons murdered on the  unfounded apprehension that the sons would interfere in their rule demonstrates how  fundamental is this law  of the rejection of interference in rulership.  And  the  law  of  prevention  of  participation,  which  the  independence intrinsic to rulership necessitates, has  shown its strength in the history of mankind through extraordinary upheavals whenever there have been two governors in a town or two kings in a country.