Loading ...
Subscribe via RSS
Sign up on our Email list
Join the Facebook Group
Twitter Newsfeed
Podcast of Multimedia
iTunes ChannelAre God and Islam provable? Reflections on Sura al-Rum
Share
Are God and Islam Provable: Part 1 | Part 2
By Hamdija Begovic
Dawah activities as well as introspective reflection on the nature of faith lead the Muslim believer to ponder the relationship between proof and religious belief. We believe, but on what basis? Do we have any proof that God exists and that Islam is the truth? And what, in the first place, constitutes proof?
Mind you, there are different schools of philosophy and all kinds of opinions on what it really means to prove something. Materialists and naturalists will, of course, argue that the scientific, empirical method for determining the truth should always be the name of the game. To turn to empiricism with respect to religion, however, is obviously problematic since the idea of God and spiritual truth is something beyond the material world. To use a method designed for the study of our material world in trying to determine whether an incorporeal, transcendent being exists would be like using a thermometer to measure the height of the ceiling – by definition, the method is unsuited to the task. Considering that philosophers of science constantly quarrel among themselves over what should qualify as legitimate science as opposed to pseudoscience (one may, for instance, mention Karl Popper’s criticism of psychoanalysis), we as Muslims and believers in a Just and Merciful God who gives every human being an equal opportunity to gain guidance have to reject the idea that the truth about Him only may be reached by the elites of the society who are thoroughly educated in the philosophy of science. Education isn’t universally accessible today, and not everyone has time for intellectual pursuits; most of the world’s people are too busy trying to put food on the table. To use sophisticated principles formulated in modern times as a yardstick for finding out the truth (about God, specifically) would put people of a higher socio-economic class at an advantage vis-à-vis the less privileged (and those who lived and died before these modern principles were formulated). Of course, not everyone shares the Muslim belief that God exists and that He is Merciful and Just. The point is, however, that if He exists, and if He is, indeed, Just and Merciful, then the yardstick for finding out the truth about Him would have to be superior to the one we use for finding out truths about the material world in order for everyone, regardless of time and place, to have equal access to that truth. If He exists, that is. But how do we know, then, if He does? What should, then, be used as the yardstick, the criterion for discerning spiritual truth? The answer, dear reader, is to be found in Surah al-Rum.
أَوَلَمْ يَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ
Do they not contemplate within themselves?
***
If a random man stopped me on the street and asked me if I believed in God, my answer would be that I do. If he were then to ask me whether this belief of mine is scientifically verifiable, I would say that the scientific method, since it only deals with the material world, cannot be invoked to determine the matter at hand. In other words, I would say that God’s existence (probably) isn’t scientifically verifiable. He may then ask me if I were sure. Positive, I would reply. But how, he would wonder, can you be sure even though it isn’t scientifically proven? My response would be the following: I know that God exists the same way that I know that murder is wrong. It cannot be scientifically proven that murder is wrong; science doesn’t even deal with that question as it is beyond its domain. Yet, I still believe that murder is wrong. Why? Because it is an innate human belief. In the same way, my entire being screams out a declaration of God’s existence. I simply cannot not believe. I have no doubt that murder is wrong, and I have no doubt about God’s existence. Neither of these two things is scientifically provable, yet I know them to be true. Since God wants guidance for everyone willing to receive it, He already created us with a natural and intuitive inclination towards the truth about Him. That way, when a prophet comes to us with God’s message, we can immediately recognize it as truth because it will sound intimately familiar to our soul. This means that we are already equipped with the ability for finding out the truth, we already possess said yardstick. It is within us. So when the dhikr (reminder) reaches us, telling us that killing, lying, stealing, etc., are wrong, all we have to do is respond since we already know that it is true. And when the message of tawhid reaches us, we instinctively know that it is true. We know that God exists, we know that He isn’t a human being or in any other way like His creation, and we know that He alone deserves our devotion. This natural human inclination towards truth is called the fitrah.
فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفًا فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ
So direct your face toward the religion, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the fitrah of Allah upon which He has created [all] people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah. That is the correct religion
The signs are there for us, all of them speaking to our soul. His creation points to His existence. One of His signs is the beauty of love between a man and a woman.
وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِّتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُم مَّوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ
And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.
Today, we know all about the physical and chemical reactions that take place in our bodies when we are in love. Yet, the mere notion of love between two people speaks to our soul. Through recognizing the beauty of love, we see the hand of God.
However, the question arises that if the signs of His existence are there for us to recognize, and if we are created with a natural disposition to faith, why doesn’t everyone believe?
يَعْلَمُونَ ظَاهِرًا مِّنَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ عَنِ الْآخِرَةِ هُمْ غَافِلُونَ
They know what is apparent of the worldly life, but they, of the Hereafter, are unaware.
Obviously, God is hidden from our senses. The Qur’an ridicules the notion that God and His angels should descend to the earth so that people can see them, pointing out that the matter would then be settled, everyone would have to believe, and there would no longer be any wisdom in going through this worldly life as a test. But the question remains, why do some believe while others don’t? We all know that God guides whomever He wills, but what is the factor that brings about God’s guidance?
بَلِ اتَّبَعَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا أَهْوَاءهُم بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ فَمَن يَهْدِي مَنْ أَضَلَّ اللَّهُ وَمَا لَهُم مِّن نَّاصِرِينَ
But those who wrong follow their [own] desires without knowledge. Then who can guide one whom Allah has sent astray? And for them there are no helpers.
We have a choice in life. We can choose to go through it suppressing and smothering this built-in inclination towards truth and following our own desires instead. We can choose to focus on getting the most out of this material world, ignoring and covering our innate recognition of spiritual truth (the term for unbelief, in Arabic, is kufr which literally means covering over). The people who choose this path do not yearn for God’s guidance, and so He leaves them to wander freely in this dark world. Thus, we find some people who ignore their fitrah by denying God. Some ignore it by justifying murder, lying, and thievery. There are others who decide to overrule the impulse to pursue only the material world; instead, these people embrace and celebrate their innate belief in God. The love for Him is simply too strong, and therefore they dedicate their lives to Him. They surrender and submit to Him (and this is what Islam means in Arabic), and so God guides them to His light. When they hear His Words, they instantly recognize them as being true.
وَمَا أَنتَ بِهَادِي الْعُمْيِ عَن ضَلَالَتِهِمْ إِن تُسْمِعُ إِلَّا مَن يُؤْمِنُ بِآيَاتِنَا فَهُم مُّسْلِمُونَ
And you cannot guide the blind away from their error. You will only make hear those who believe in Our verses so they are Muslims [in submission to Allah].
In the afterlife, the delusion of those who chose the wrong path will become apparent to them. And it will be clear that the people of faith, with their consciousness of spiritual matters, possessed the true knowledge.
وَيَوْمَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ يُقْسِمُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ مَا لَبِثُوا غَيْرَ سَاعَةٍ كَذَلِكَ كَانُوا يُؤْفَكُونَ
وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْعِلْمَ وَالْإِيمَانَ لَقَدْ لَبِثْتُمْ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْبَعْثِ فَهَذَا يَوْمُ الْبَعْثِ وَلَكِنَّكُمْ كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
And the Day the Hour appears the criminals will swear they had remained but an hour. Thus they were deluded. But those who were given knowledge and faith will say, “You remained the extent of Allah’s decree until the Day of Resurrection, and this is the Day of Resurrection, but you did not used to know.”
Therefore:
فَاصْبِرْ إِنَّ وَعْدَ اللَّهِ حَقٌّ وَلَا يَسْتَخِفَّنَّكَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُوقِنُونَ
So be patient. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And let them not disquiet you who are not certain [in faith].
© MuslimMatters.org by Guests on March 1st, 2010. All rights reserved. Please see legal & other disclaimers here.
48 Responses »
Trackbacks
Leave a Response
Entries(RSS)
Alhamdulillah its true that we have a natural inclination to believe in Allah. But can we really prove the existence of Allah to someone this way? What if someone says ” Well I feel that God does not exist” or “I feel that God exists but I’m not logically convinced”. How should we respond?
I would personally not spend too much time discussing the issue with such a person. For me, again, it would be like talking to someone who says: “I don’t feel that murder is wrong” or “I feel that murder is wrong but I’m not logically convinced”. You can present to him the rational arguments, but in the end it comes down to how much a person is in touch with his fitrah and wants to be guided to the truth.
You are right sister. Logic and reason are based on axioms – truths that are accepted and taken for granted without proof, these are based on the fitra, and how our brains are wired. If these self evident truths are not accepted, conversation based on logic alone no longer works. One has to appeal to the fitra, the heart, and try to awaken whatever part of it is left.
Great article, mA. Love the reasoning that science does not deal with God’s existence, just like murder can’t be proven “scientifically wrong.” I never thought about it in that way before!
salam,
What if someone were to respond:
“Murder isn’t ‘wrong’. Wrong is just a word referring to the idea that murder is simply something we as a group of individuals have chosen to create:
1. A strong number of consequences against.
2. A strong taboo against.
In order to preserve our own social, resource, and biological well-being – the objectives of any animal . If we had not done so, our own lives would constantly be under threat of violence, and this would not allow us to function.
Essentially, humans consider murder wrong, because we are looking out for our own individual interests, and this aggregates to a collective interest of protecting life.
Often times, when a human being has enough power to not have to worry about protecting his own life (i.e. leader of the state), you often see him using it to murder, take life, and imprison, because this self-preservation is no longer a concern for him. Within limits, he can do what he wants without consequences, so it is not ‘wrong’ to him, only to the rest of us.
———————————
This is likely what the athiest would do, reduce what you have termed as “wrong” down to a result biological/animal self-preservation, which is entirely a valid explanation I think, even though we believe all of this is divinely engineered.
Although I love the rest of your article, including seeing the signs of Allah (swt), observing Mercy in creation, etc; I am not sure if the murder/morals argument stands on its own. I may be wrong.
wAllahu ‘alam.
Abdul Sattar
Well, even those who would reduce morals to self-preservation can’t say that human beings develop the feeling that murder is wrong after having pondered the consequences of murder to society. The actual feeling that murder is repungnant comes naturally, not as a result of logical thinking. Logical and rational thinking merely reinforces that initial innate feeling. So I would not buy the argument that it is something we’ve “chosen to create”. However, the argument can be made that this feeling that murder is wrong developed through evolutionary processes. My point with the article, however, is that neither the question of murder being right/wrong, or the question of God’s existence can be proven empirically. Rationally, yes. But the issue is beyond empirical science. We know these truths (murder is wrong, God exists) independently of it. That is because they are crucial, and the knowledge of them has been placed in us by God.
Of course it’s provable! It’s evident from the miraculous nature of the Qur’an that: 1. Allah exists and 2. The Qur’an is a revelation from Allah (and therefore Islam is true).
But the question is; how many Muslims know and understand the miraculous nature of the Qur’an? Br. Hamza Andreas Tzortzis made this excellent website: http://www.theinimitablequran.com/ which is dedicated to explaining the literary aspect of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature (and he blogs here: http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/). Sheikh Yasir also has an excellent chapter in his book An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an which deals with this and other aspects of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature.
After understanding that the Qur’an is a miracle (and HOW it is a miracle), one cannot be in any doubt that the Qur’an is divine in origin and, by extension, a divine being (Allah) exists.
Notice that I tossed in the word “probably” after saying that God’s existence isn’t empirically provable.
Before one could determine whether or not the miraculous nature of the Qur’an is empirically observable, one would have to define miraculous speech. And I’m not sure that such a thing can be done because that is subjective. Of course, the Qur’an touches our soul and through that we know that it is God’s Words, but I’m not sure that it is something that can be determined through empirical science.
However, I never said that the only way to prove something is through empirical science. There is rational proof as well.
JazakAllah Khayr for the reply but I would beg to differ in regards to your point about the miraculous nature of the Qur’an being subjective. If you check out the links Inshaa’Allah, you will see that it is based entirely on objective criteria. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Qur’anic challenge:
“And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful. But if you do not – and you will never be able to – then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.” [2:23-24]
Allah is basically saying here that, if you cannot produce a Surah the like thereof, then you should be in no doubt that the Qur’an comes from Allah. The reason why it is not possible to “produce a Surah the like thereof” is because of the miraculous nature of the Qur’an. A miracle is defined (as Br. Hamza Tzortzis explains) as “an event which lies outside the productive capacity of nature”. The reason why the Qur’an is a miracle is because it lies beyond the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language. It is neither prose, nor is it poetry (the only two literary forms available in the Arabic language). It has a completely unique literary form, linguistic genre and is unmatched in terms of the frequency with which it uses rhetorical features. Note that uniqueness and frequency of rhetorical features are both objective criteria.
There are tonnes of other aspects which I don’t have time to go into but please please check out the links that I mentioned. Unfortunately, it is all too common for Muslims not to be aware of how exactly the Qur’an is a miracle and wallaahi there is objective proof in the miracle of the Qur’an that it originates from Allah.
In my haste, I forgot to mention that it’s a great article you wrote Mashaa’Allah.
I think some clarification needs to be done as to what empirical science is. Drawing conclusions from observation and testable hypotheses, that’s it. Science is not about reasonable, down-to-earth explanations for everything at all. I don’t know why that very unscientific philosophy is being pushed around so much and why people have extrapolated the very basic idea of science so far off.
With that being said, Allah subhana wat’ala constantly directs us to observe and observe. And also we are challenged and given falsifiable hypotheses (ie “produce another chapter”, “bring back the dead”, “bring sun from west”) to test and to draw conclusions from which bring us to the truth.
All of this is scientific by definition, so to say “probably isn’t scientifically provable” doesn’t fit at all.
Interesting perspective. Scientific measurements can not proof God exists however the science of logic does. Even the founders of logic believed in a creator if I am not mistaken. Yes thinking and contemplating and searching for the truth unbiasedly will lead one to Islam because of verses like you quoted and many others.
We have measured many, many fundamental constants in physics very precisely. And we have also found out that if they differed by even the tiniest amount the universe could not exist, period. Is this observation not proof among many, many other proofs/signs? And is this proof not scientifically measured?
As mentioned above, this is an interesting perspective and one that I have never considered before. By profession I use my mind and view things according to the ‘scientific method’. I had to mentally deprogram myself to accept and learn about the soul which is another entity that is not easily characterized or provable. I have always found comfort in the following verse:
“Say: “Of your ‘partners’ can anyone originate creation and repeat it?” Say: It is Allah Who begins creation and repeats it: Then why are you deceived away (from the truth)?”" (10:34)
Salaam alaykum,
Jzk for this article – great reminder of the importance of daw’ah – without teaching and spreading islam, the majority of people will not return to their fitrah for the answers, but to what family and society dictates is “right” and “wrong”.
Siraaj
There is also a danger of falling into the “belief in God is in my heart”. The point is it makes sense, is logical, and quite obvious from the wonder of creation around us that it is not that result of purposeless blind accidents, rather it is from a plan and design.
I agree the fitra trumps all, but empirical evidence plays a strong part, the Quran constantly points to the world around us and its harmony as a sign of God. The problem is this empirical reasoning is not independent of the fitra. Some will see the wonder of the world, and say “what a great universe, we are lucky to be here”, and thank inanimate matter and chance rather than acknowledge God. Their fitra is simply distorted.
Logic itself is based on axioms that find their root in the fitra. For instance, there is not “logical reason” to trust our senses, they could be just a dream, or our brains hooked up to a machine – Matrix style. But it is simply in our innate nature not to believe that, and to trust our senses.
In the end, you have to use all in conjunction to find truth – and guidance comes from God. The Human being subhanAllah is a complex entity. May God guide us all.
Assalamu alaikum,
Thank you for this lucid, practical piece, written with a sure-footed confidence that only iman can engender in a believer. It is one of the articles on MM that I have benefited the most from.
The miraculous tapestry of Quran makes every ayah and every part of an ayah an elucidation of every other ayah and surah and the lessons within them, so there are many other ayahs that directly support the points you have made or are miraculously related to the ayahs you have quoted from surah rum, being different but never contradicting. Spend some time with the ayahs 13:14-13:19, or, indeed, all of Surah Ra’d, and reflect on them in the context of what you have written here.
I hope to remember these three points from your article and comments, and use them in my dawah efforts when needed:
Jazakumullahu khairan
JazakAllahu khairan… That was really beneficial, Alhamdulillah.
JazakumAllah khayr for this article.
Personally, I find that the best answer to such question that some might ask about how do you know that God exists, is what a Bedouin once answered when he was asked that question. The Bedouin said that if the presence of droppings are evidence that the camel exists, and the footprints are evidence that some one walked through this path, then isn’t such skies and earth evidence of the existence of the Almighty who is acquainted with all things ?!
I don’t think that any person does not know deep down inside of him that Allah does exist, but some people just deny it when inside of them they are aware of the truth.
(And they rejected those Signs in iniquity and arrogance, though their souls were convinced thereof: so see what was the end of those who acted corruptly!) 027.014
Those kind of arguments seem to only work for people who already believe. The atheist, of course, would say, “The skies and earth are evidence of such and such natural phenomenon.” Cue big bang and natural law talk. Similarly they might say, “These droppings MIGHT be from a camel. They might be something else, they might be rocks which appear to look like camel droppings.” Droppings are not proof of anything.
In the case of camel droppings, one can simply find a camel and observe it doing its business. You cannot observe God–Himself–creating the earth and skies. The problem with atheists is they have explanations for why things happened. You can attribute it to God, or you can attribute it to natural selection, big bang, such and such science law, Planck time, etc etc (how quickly I get into topics I know nothing about!)
Atheists say, and I have heard them say this, “There is no proof God, nor is there any proof of interstellar pink unicorns. So why not believe in interstellar pink unicorns?”
We can say to the atheists exactly what they say, that you cannot observe the big bang/natural selection/evolution, and yet you believe in it, so maybe the atheists should also believe in interstellar pink unicorns!
Back to this verse, the atheists just like the rest of the disbelievers, they do not believe in Allah because they choose not to, and not because they don’t know that Allah exists!
(And they rejected those Signs in iniquity and arrogance, though their souls were convinced thereof: so see what was the end of those who acted corruptly!) 027.014
First of all, we have to drop the notion that explaining how something works takes away from the power of Allah subhana wat’ala. This is a very christian mentality that you only attribute something in nature to Allah only when you can’t explain it. In the Qur’an, Allah describes many natural processes but it is still completely attributed to Him.
Secondly, atheists don’t actually have scientific explanations for how the universe is created. What do I mean by this?
*Disclaimer: I’m taking these theories to the maximum possible extent of their explanatory power if they were hypothetically accurate (which I have my doubts about).
Evolution –> No scientist on the planet has any scientific way of explaining how the first cell was created. Remember that experiment on synthesizing amino acids (nowhere close to a cell) from primordial stew? Even that was found to be bogus.
Big Bang –> No scientist can explain why the big bang even happened. Even more remarkable, the scientific constants (gravity, electricity, strong/weak nuclear force etc) are ridiculously precise, in that if they were changed a tiny bit the universe could not exist, and this is one among many precise natural phenomenon that are just right to allow for life.
What I find ironic and down-right hilarious, is that when an atheist tries to explain these origins, they are taking exactly the unscientific and baseless leaps of faith they are so vocal against. So what’s the difference between they’re explanations and our explanations? Here’s the punch line – we have proof! So let’s start talking about the Qu’ran and the Prophet sual Allahu alayhi wasalam, and one can see how Islam is armed with logic and proof (on top of the power of fitrah), while atheism is based on conjectures, irrationality and gigantic leaps-of-faith.
Ah, the irony.
Those points about evolution and the big bang are remarkable and one would of course consider them to be signs of God’s existence. But to really appreciate them one would have to have at least a basic knowledge of the physical sciences. And this knowledge isn’t availible to everyone today, nor has it, for obvious reasons, been through history. And that’s why I think that it is almost kind of redundant, really, to invoke sophisticated scientific facts (as opposed to down-to-earth observations about the nature around us) or complex philosophical arguments to try and prove God’s existence. It isn’t really necessary since human beings believe in God by default; all one has to do, in dawah, is to appeal to that natural human belief in Him. At least at the basic level of dawah. Now, for someone who wants to delve into the issue a bit deeper, then your points about evolution and the big bang are wonderful (so I’m not disagreeing with you). But God’s existence is equally known to us without science or complex philosophical arguments in favor of it.
Oh, I couldn’t agree more! But when people start bringing the overestimated science card to the table, it’s gotta be addressed. The problem these days is the average person has so many misunderstanding about Islam, and so many misunderstandings about science, you just get a jumble of strange beliefs popping up. As a muslim scientist, you could imagine how many times I’ve had to say “actually, that’s not what ___ says”
But, as you could probably tell, I have a fun time shedding some light on things.
I’m curious how the primordial soup theory was found to be bogus. Granted I tend to stay away from evolution arguments, cause I don’t have 12 Ph.Ds in biology so I quickly run into territory where I have no idea what’s being said. However, after a little research, I see that with the primordial soup theory, scientists in the 50s were able to create amino acids in a laboratory by mimicking what they thought were early earth conditions (Miller-Urey experiment).
This, at least, seems to reinforce their position, not declare it bogus. Did they create life? No, but they could be on their way.
As for the big bang, and this may just be playing semantics, no scientist would explain why anything happened. They just say how–but I think that’s what you meant.
They do seem to put a lot of faith into their theories though. They will often just cite the anthropic principle–the idea that, that we are here to even ask why we are here is proof that it happened (because we are here to ask). This of course requires as much “blind faith” as anything else they ridicule.
If they ever get there, please let me know!
The Miller-Urey experiment has a number of problems, and there have been a number of arguments in the scientific community, this article can give you the jist of it:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/
In all honesty, there is a lot more science to both sides of this, but the way I’ve seen it represented as “able to create amino acids in a laboratory by mimicking what they thought were early earth conditions” is very oversimplified and misleading to the general public, and thus bogus.
On top of that, amino acids are far, far, far off from a living cell, which was the main idea of my point, that evolution at best has no scientific proof for the origin of life, so it’s back to conjectures. (the miller-urey experiment is a bit of a tangent that I went on)
As for the big bang, we’re playing word-games lol. I was referring to the lack of scientific evidence for how the big bang occured (i.e. what caused the big bang) and thus what caused the origin of the universe, so once again, it gets back to conjectures when we’re talking about the true meat of the matter.
Greetings Scott!
Interesting points, although I believe they are more applicable to a mainstream Christian concept of God.
“These droppings MIGHT be from a camel. They might be something else, they might be rocks which appear to look like camel droppings.”
However, it must be noted that a Camel is physiologically, something very specific. This is where this mainstream stereotypical concept of God comes into play. You see, it is harder to conclude that certain droppings originated from camels, than to say that the knowable universe is casually entailed by God [Aha, however, this depends on the CONCEPT of God, I'll get to that].
Why? Simply because in the natural world, there are MANY equally plausible explanations for why certain droppings exist (i.e. other animals are equally capable of expelling droppings). It would require a) [as you stated] observing the camel do its stuff or b) study the fecal matter, its DNA etc. and then make a conclusion. In both cases, empirical methods are being directly used.
However, this is not true for, ex. determining if one had a great grandfather who lived in the 13th century. You do not need to “observe” this grandfather, nor any parts of the causal chain (other relatives). As you know that in order for you to exist, you needed one. This requires only logic it seems.
Now, as for God, the mainstream concept depicts an invisible magical man up in the sky – an anthropomorphic being. As such, it is also harder then, to attribute the universe’s existence to such an entity. Such specifications and attributes added onto a concept of God, would, in mathematical terms (probability) reduce the likelihood of this kind of God being the “cause” OR require equally adequate “proof.”
Here is where Islam differs. God in Islam, is essentially the Embodiment of the Laws that Govern Reality. Now this, at first sight may seem like a “vague” definition, but that’s exactly the case. In Islam, the idea of over-personifying “God” is foreign. We know that the physical reality does not explain itself, and is contingent upon certain laws. The question only remains is, is it within the nature of this Law to encompass some intrinsic consciousness (and thus being different from a set of lifeless, mechanical laws).
This does not mean, however, that this sort of “consciousness” must be humanistic in any way. I believe, using Occam’s Razor, that it is simpler to attribute such a universe – containing such finely tuned constants – to a Law (i.e. a unification of the laws that govern reality) that had, within its nature, the quality of Creating (i.e. He intended all this, as it is a part of His nature), as opposed to a set of mechanical laws lacking “conscious will”.
As such, there’s a major difference between the Islamic concept of God, and interstellar pink unicorns. The obvious being – they DO exist in the physical temporal realm. Thus, demanding empirical proof for their existence is completely valid. Not so for this concept of God.
Think of it this way: We KNOW there is a Universe, however, we have never seen the whole entity (and frankly cannot grasp it all at once, as we could for ex. a book). We have merely perceived tiny components of it, and some (I think is determined by the physics and math: conceptually, in a mathematical way). Therefore, does the universe as a whole exist? Well of course it does, however, different lines of thinking allow us to conclude this. Observationally, we can only “see” that we are encompassed by some sort of greater being.
Btw, this is what I mean by the – KNOWABLE universe (the components we can comprehend).
Let me also add:
The personal attributes of God – the Most-Merciful, the Compassionate etc. are not to be confused with the “humanistic” expressions. That is to say, God does not have any humanistic “emotions”. Thus, although the Islamic concept of God has a stable definition, it does not over personify God nor does the believer seek to “know” God in personal terms (as in Christianity).
This is not to say that a Muslim is not to develop a profound spiritual connection with God, rather that his/her knowledge of “God” Who/What He is will be quite limited in relation to God’s entirety (however, enough to satisfy finite minds).
Thus, this is what I mean by this idea of “vagueness” – we are not claiming that some magical invisible large observer completely separate from the universe created it by snapping his fingers. We have a miniscule understanding of WHAT God is, however, enough of one. Such a concept was indeed the reason I dwelt in Agnosticism (as an Atheist, lacking knowledge of whether God did not exist).
As for innately “believing” in God (as the author of the article stresses), perhaps this will require some philosophical elaboration. After establishing this above concept of God, things make more sense. See, a Muslim is simply one who submits to God (follows His will or commandments). On the physical level, all humans “submit” to physical laws, we “submit” to cycles of consciousness, and so in this way (since God is the embodiment of the laws that govern the universe), we are submitting to His laws. It is only, in the spiritual realm, that humans are left to choose whether they will consciously “submit” to God.
In this respect, not just humans, but all contingent things “submit” and thereby “believe” (not always in a literal sense, but I think you know what I mean). Sorry for my verbosity! Take care!
Brother Ayman, it would be wrong to say that God is the embodiment of the laws. God created these laws, but they are not embodied in Him, so it would be better to rephrase that statement.
Assalamulaikum my dear brother,
Thank you for your thoughts. Please allow for me to clarify what I mean by that statement. “God is the embodiment of the laws that govern the universe.”
What I was trying to stress here was that – yes, indeed the “created” laws which themselves are contingent are His creation, but He Himself is The Law. Why? What is a law in this context? Simply a being – a state of existence that governs, determines etc.
As such, I am not stating that for ex. Gravity is a law physically embodied by Him. Rather, I am stating that He is THE LAW – or the Being that determines all contingent things (as everything is contingent except Himself). Gravity would be entailed by a Unification – an absolute Oneness of the “supreme” set of Laws which cannot be divided or exist separately from one another – this is what we call Allah (in other words it’s like saying He is a unification of His attributes, you cannot label His individual attributes ex. All-Knowing as being Allah, as they are exactly that – individual attributes which cannot be separated from His entirety).
So this is what I mean by “Embodiment of the Laws” – as we as Muslims would say Allah’s “Mercy” governs the universe as it is supposed to (within the context of its nature), or that His “Knowledge” encompasses all – the past, present, and future etc. These are thus “laws” in that they determine what Reality is as opposed to what it is not (i.e. they define Reality as it is).
Reality would be different if God was different (however this is not possible, as He is absolute, beyond time and thus, THESE current state of affairs is the only one possible).
I understand what you are saying though, that it may yield some misleading connotations for those who may not grasp it’s implications.
However, with the above clarification, I don’t see a problem with the statement. If you still do, please let me know. My main reason for using that statement is to stress, particularly to Atheists (who accept that the physical and contingent realm is dependent upon laws), that God Himself is the ultimate Law and not necessarily something mutually exclusive from their idea that these contingent realms or states of existence are determined by laws.
In this way, it appeals to them more then simply saying “We believe in One God with no partners, who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Absolute” etc. As, unfortunately, people subconsiously associate all their misconceptions and stereotypes with this monotheistic concept of God (however baseless they may be). This is what I was referring to when I mentioned the anthropomorphic model. Stating that “He is not some anthropomorphic deity” is also often too vague for them – as they still conceive of Him as some large observer completely separate from the universe who merely intervenes sometimes.
As for being “the Law” – that description is perfectly in line with what the Qu’ran stresses. It must necessarily be absolute (unchanging otherwise it would also be contingent and incomplete – bound by time), All-powerful, All-Knowing etc.
If I have erred, I seek Allah’s forgiveness, this is simply my understanding which may very well be flawed. If so, please correct me brother.
Thank you! May Allah guide us.
Assalamulaikum brother,
Thank you for the response. I had posted an earlier response, however, it seems it has been deleted, or did not post correctly?
I appreciate your thoughts, however, please allow for me to substantiate and clarify my position.
You see, the statement that “God is the Embodiment of the Laws that govern the Universe…” can be interpreted incorrectly (from what I intended). This appears to be the case here, as it does not mean that God physically embodies physical laws such as the law of gravity. Firstly, I think it’s important that we define what a “law” means in this context.
My use of “Law” here simply refers to a position of authority and control over an effect or contingency. In other words, it is merely a state of existence that determines, and sustains “contingent” beings. If this is the case, than of course Allah (swt) is “the Law.” You see, laws such as gravity may be a part of the creation, but it too is dependent upon a higher set of laws (it must be, if we claim that it is a “creation”).
This is all I mean – Allah is “the Law” (i.e. the unification of the ultimate set of laws that determine and sustain All). These “laws” cannot be divided, or viewed as “god” individually (as Hindu’s often do – they take one of the aspects of God, and personify it as a lesser god). In other words, this is just another way of saying Allah (swt) is a unification of all His attributes (i.e. All-Knowing, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate). They are in fact “laws” in that they determine what Reality is, as opposed to what it is not. More than that, they sustain this universe. If God was different, this universe would also be different. Of course, God could not be different as He is absolute (beyond time, and so has a definite nature).
None of His attributes can be, individually, considered to represent His entirety, rather we view Him as the Embodiment of them all, inseparable.
I used that statement to express our belief in Allah simply because most Atheists (who’ve seriously thought about this) already agree that the contingencies are dependent upon higher laws. They automatically reject anthropomorphic deities, just as we do. However, saying “we believe in One God!” carries many connotations with it that they have in-built defenses against. In other words, stereotypical thinking causes many to presuppose certain things about “God” when in fact they may not be the case at all.
This is why I brought up the “man up in the sky” fallacy – many Atheists automatically (perhaps subconsciously?) assume Islam’s “monotheistic” concept is simply a variation of Christianity’s over personified concept. And certainly, the pure and pristine Christianity (Islam) expressed the same concept – it has become incredibly tainted. As a former Atheist, I along with many of my philosophy mates agreed with this idea that we’d presume many things about “God” because of mainstream ideas not necessarily rooted in Islam, OR Christianity.
I pray this clears up the matter. I seek forgiveness if I have erred. Let me know what you’re thoughts are on the matter.
Another response (slight variation, perhaps it will be clearer):
Assalamulaikum brother,
Thank you for the response.
I appreciate your thoughts, however, please allow for me to substantiate and clarify my position.
You see, the statement that “God is the Embodiment of the Laws that govern the Universe…” can be interpreted incorrectly (from what I intended). This appears to be the case here, as it does not mean that God physically embodies physical laws such as the law of gravity. Firstly, I think it’s important that we define what a “law” means in this context.
My use of “Law” here simply refers to a position of authority and control over an effect or contingency. In other words, it is merely a state of existence that determines, and sustains “contingent” beings. If this is the case, than of course Allah (swt) is “the Law.” You see, laws such as gravity may be a part of the creation, but it too is dependent upon a higher set of laws (it must be, if we claim that it is a “creation”).
This is all I mean – Allah is “the Law” (i.e. the unification of the ultimate set of laws that determine and sustain All). These “laws” cannot be divided, or viewed as “god” individually (as Hindu’s often do – they take one of the aspects of God, and personify it as a lesser god). In other words, this is just another way of saying Allah (swt) is a unification of all His attributes (i.e. All-Knowing, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate). They are in fact “laws” in that they determine what Reality is, as opposed to what it is not. More than that, they sustain this universe. If God was different, this universe would also be different. Of course, God could not be different as He is absolute (beyond time, and so has a definite nature).
None of His attributes can be, individually, considered to represent His entirety, rather we view Him as the Embodiment of them all, inseparable.
I used that statement to express our belief in Allah simply because most Atheists (who’ve seriously thought about this) already agree that the contingencies are dependent upon higher laws. They automatically reject anthropomorphic deities, just as we do. However, saying “we believe in One God!” carries many connotations with it that they have in-built defenses against. In other words, stereotypical thinking causes many to presuppose certain things about “God” when in fact they may not be the case at all.
This is why I brought up the “man up in the sky” fallacy – many Atheists automatically (perhaps subconsciously?) assume Islam’s “monotheistic” concept is simply a variation of Christianity’s over personified concept. And certainly, the pure and pristine Christianity (Islam) expressed the same concept – it has become incredibly tainted. As a former Atheist, I along with many of my philosophy mates agreed with this idea that we’d presume many things about “God” because of mainstream ideas not necessarily rooted in Islam, OR Christianity.
I pray this clears up the matter. I seek forgiveness if I have erred. Let me know what you’re thoughts are on the matter.
Brother Ayman, JazakAllah khayr for your clarification, but I still don’t think that it is permissible to describe Allah as being “The Law”, because He isn’t described as such in the Quran or authentic sunnah, and we wouldn’t want to describe Him in a way which He hasn’t described Himself. Saying that Allah determines everything or that everything is in His hands would be a much better statement which doesn’t leave any place for anyone to misunderstand what you are trying to say. So my advice would be to stay away from such vague words such as “The Law” which might be misunderstood by others to mean something which you wasn’t saying.
@ abd-allah
may allah reward you with good
Ameen. May Allah join us together akhi abdullah in Paradise with the Prophet peace be upon him and his companions.
ameen
Thats what I always say…use surah ar-Rum in your dawah! Nothing else!
Ameen
Albert Einstein said it beautifully (even though he denies religion) when he said:
“I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”
And Einstein also wrote:
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who–in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’– cannot hear the music of the spheres”
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html
@Brother Abd- Allah. Thank you very much for your response. If you do not mind, I have some questions, as I do wish to clarify whether my line of thinking is then fallacious.
Would you be able to clarify if, in Islam, it is impermissible to extrapolate concepts from the Qur’an, and use other words that may for example, be almost synonyms with words Allah does in fact use to describe Himself? I suppose this also goes into the whole “philosophy” debate, and how far a Muslim is allowed to relate his logical understanding of the terms in the Qur’an (ex. describing God). I ask this because, on a “logical” level, it would appear that everything Allah states to describe Himself relates directly to “laws” (He is the Law Giver etc.). And so, would it be permissible on these merits? Or, must we simply restrict ourselves to the exact words (ex. those found in Surah Al-Iklas)? Or, are we permitted to “explain” to a human extent, very carefully of course, how we understand the concept “Absolute” as stressed in the Qur’an?
I guess my fundamental question is, are we allowed to reflect upon the meanings of for ex. His descriptions of Himself, and then use words which may very well be synonyms such as “the Law” (but of course I see how it must be explained and directly related back to what the Qur’an states – I never intended on basing it on anything else).
And I agree that using “Allah determines everything” or “everything is in His hands…” are clear to Muslims. However, it still seems as if those terms and phrases carry different conceptual meanings to different people. In which case, it would require some explanation (of course rooted in the Qur’an) to illustrate what that means in an Islamic context (even so, our understanding of “what that means” will be limited it seems).
I hope you do not get the impression that I’m simply blindly trying to debate, I simply wish to clarify my own understanding, and learn.
Thank you brother!
BarakAllah feek brother Ayman, and I ask Allah to give us both the proper understanding of His deen.
When it comes to the names of Allah, then we have to stick specifically to what is literally mentioned in the Quran and authentic hadiths, because when it comes to more general descriptions, we are allowed to explain using our own terms. I’ll give you an example to make things clearer. Arraheem (The Most Merciful) is one of the names of Allah as mentioned in the Quran, so we can use that name and also describe the meaning of it in our own terms and talk about the mercy of Allah. On the other hand, we all know that Allah is patient on His servants and doesn’t punish the wrong doers immediately when they sin and they have the chance to repent, so we can use those words to in general to describe Allah, but we can’t say that Allah is Assabur (The Most Patient), because that name is not mentioned in the Quran or authentic hadiths. So while Allah is patient, yet we can’t give Him the name Assabur if it isn’t mentioned in the Quran, but we can say that Allah is patient. Similarly, Allah gives life and death, and we can say that to describe Allah, but we can’t say that Allah is The Killer, because that is not one of the names which are mentioned in the Quran. So when it comes to the names of Allah, they are tawqeefiyyah, meaning we stop and don’t call Allah by a name which wasn’t specifically mentioned in the Quran or authentic hadiths. As for more general descriptions or explanations of the attributes of Allah, then there is more leeway there for us to use our own terms, like we can say that Allah is patient, He covers His servants and their sins, etc.
Another thing when it comes to the names and attributes of Allah is that we believe in the meaning of them, but we don’t delve deep into trying to understand how they work and we shouldn’t for example ask how Allah is or how He does things, but rather we should just believe in His names and attributes and what He said about Himself in the Quran and not try to explain how they are and we shouldn’t compare them to our own attributes because there is nothing like Allah, so therefore we can’t even compare His attributes to our attributes, and we simply believe in them without trying to go too deep into the philosophical details.
By the way, there are over 110 names of the names of Allah that we know from the Quran and authentic hadiths, so using them should be sufficient to describe Allah and His attributes, and while we can’t give a specific name for Allah which there is no proof for it from the Quran or authentic hadiths, but we still can use our own words and proper terminology to explain the names and attributes which have been specifically mentioned in the Quran and authentic hadiths, and we can point out examples from the things around us, and use proofs, logic, and common sense to show them.
InshAllah this clears things up a little, but this talk about the names and attributes of Allah and describing them is a vast subject on which some scholars of Islam wrote many books.
Assalamulaikum,
Thank you brother, for your clarification. Yes, I see what you mean – my views have been along those lines certainly. As it is not possible for us to know the unknown hehe. This brings a quote to mind: “If you knew the Unknown you would choose Reality.”
What you say is valid, as philosophizing endlessly about concepts we have no concrete examples of is not practical. I limit my philosophizing here of course, and so for example, when the Atheists ask “how did God create the universe? Was His act of creation sequential?” I merely limit my answer to: Since He is Absolute and unchanging, no, He doesn’t act in sequential order, and is merely superior to the Universe as its cause – and the act of creation must not be seen in physical terms, but metaphysical terms etc.
But to delve in to absolute finest “mechanics” of how it occured (other than Him simultaneously creating it: Be!) is irrational as we cannot contemplate it.
I thank you again for your response. I still have much to learn, but this is important as in my high school’s MSA I would not wish to state things that could be misleading.
Salaam
correction: “Is superior to the universe as it’s Cause”
Personally, I don’t think the analogy of “the way we know murder is wrong” works. Most atheists will say it was evolution that selected that specific trait to remain in us. While I don’t think that’s a plausible answer, it definitely resonates with them.
I like the analogy of “the way we know others are conscious”. While we cannot scientifically test it, we know innately know it to be true despite a complete lack of evidence. I don’t want to get into a LONNGGG rant on why its not possible to prove the consciousness of another person. But either way, how do we know that other people aren’t just biological entities responding to stimuli (ie, philosophical zombies)? Or really sophisticated computer AI’s.
As you said, we just ‘know’. Its innate knowledge, the Fitra.
Farhan
You might be right about your analogy being better, but there are actually atheists who do, as it were, reject the idea that we are more than mere biological entities responding to external stimuli (and therefore they also reject the idea that we have free will). I actually don’t believe that these people, in their heart of hearts, really deny that they have free will (and I also believe that atheists, in their heart of hearts, do believe in God). But when it comes to the question of murder, atheists – I guess nihilists are the exception -, even though they might say that morality is a product of evolutionary processes, still do believe in moral truths. They really believe that murder is wrong, even though there is no scientific proof for it (since science, by definition, doesn’t deal with it). And not only do they believe in it, they are convinced. Without doubt. And if they believe in something that science cannot confirm nor deny, then they shouldn’t point fingers.