The Incoherence Of Atheism by Abdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUjayrī

In the previous chapter, it was highlighted that the cognition of the Lord  within the fiṭrah precedes analysis and reasoning. The imprint on the soul requires a man to acknowledge Him, , so long as his senses are of sound nature and the impediments are absent. In the event where a person falls prey to doubt or heedlessness, logic has a role in shoring up fiṭrah-based cognition by reminding the soul. Ibn Taymiyyah said, ‘There is no mutual conflict between instinctive self-evident knowledge and possession of evidence that supports it.’107

Revelation points out the main rational arguments in this issue and others. If we contemplate how revelation deals with this issue, we observe a number of points:

1. The tools of logic-based reasoning in the Qur’an and the prophetic tradition are distinctly simple and clear. They are easy to digest and are in absolute alignment with fiṭrah.

These tools are the most beneficial of rational proofs and are congruent with most souls. ‘Rational proof that is easy to grasp and digest, and is apparent to the mind, is more likely to be trusted.’108 Ibn Rushd reveals the simplicity of the proofs in revelation, and how they efficiently lead a person to the goal. He said, ‘When the religious methods are contemplated, most are found to comprise of two characteristics: they are conclusive, and they are simple and not compounds, i.e., they are few in terms of their propositions. Therefore, their conclusions would be closely aligned to their propositions.’109.

2. Abundance and variety.

This is a facilitation granted by Allah  to His servants. Ibn Taymiyyah  said, ‘The more people are in need of knowing something, Allah facilitates for them the evidence for its knowledge, such as the proofs for knowing Who He is, the proofs of His Messenger’s prophethood, the proofs of His power and knowledge, etc. Such proofs are numerous and conclusive.’110

One aspect of the argument from logic for the existence of God is that the effect is indicative of the cause, and revelation came to remind us of this argument with various wordings and in multiple contexts. With this in mind, it is then possible to prove Him  through His entire creation, as they are all one of His effects, . The effect being indicative of the cause is an umbrella argument for numerous sub-arguments, which number the amount of variety found in the creation. It is as Ibn Rushd said as he commented on the argument from invention for the existence of the Creator: ‘And in this type are many indicators as per the number of invented things.’111 In fact, ‘there is no creation that is not in itself a sign pointing to its Creator, in a manner which disallows any partnership associated unto Him’.112

The poet Abū al-ʿAtāhiyyah  said:

‘Lo, we are all going to become obsolete.

Who from the children of Adam can remain forever?.

Their origin is from their Lord.

And everyone shall return unto his Lord.

Alas, how can the Divine be disobeyed?.

And how can He be denied?.

Allah has in every motion.

And in every stationary moment a testament.

And in everything He has a sign.

Pointing out that He is the One.’.

It is clear, therefore, that the statement ‘Allah has ways unto Him to the tune of all the breaths taken by the creation’ is not far off from the truth.113.

3. The Qur’an mostly deals with this issue by way of implication and argumentum a fortiori.

Most proofs in the Qur’an mentioned to demonstrate His existence are presented to prove a wider point, such as His oneness,  in lordship and divinity. Such verses point out Allah’s existence by necessary implication. Since these verses are presented to prove the oneness of Allah  and relate some of His perfect attributes, then they are also offering proof for His existence by implication. This method of evidence is argumentum a fortiori, as is evident. To highlight an example, Allah  says, ‘Say, O Prophet, “Should I seek a lord other than Allah while He is the Lord of everything?”’114 So, for Allah to be the Lord of everything denotes that He is associated with the attributes of ultimate dominion, creation, and planning. This reveals that the Qur’an’s concern was spent not solely on proving Allah’s existence, but rather to introduce the creation to its Creator, reveal His perfect attributes, and explain the reverence, glorification, and monotheistic worship that He deserves. As for the mere cognition of the creation that they have a Lord that created and that they are in need of His existence, then that is already imprinted onto their fiṭrah.

4. Through its various wordings, revelation seeks to stimulate and remind man of the element of fiṭrah.

The Qur’an evokes the soul’s desire to adopt means in the various situations man faces in order to achieve a desired outcome. For example, Allah  says, ‘To those who disbelieve in the Hereafter belong all evil qualities, whereas to Allah belong the finest attributes. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise.’115 It also reminds the servant of his rightful place in front of his Lord and his need for Him when calamity befalls: ‘He is the One Who enables you to travel through land and sea. And it so happens that you are on ships, sailing with a favourable wind, to the passengers’ delight. Suddenly, the ships are overcome by a gale wind and those on board are overwhelmed by waves from every side, and they assume they are doomed. They cry out to Allah alone in sincere devotion, “If You save us from this, we will certainly be grateful.”’116 The Qur’an also says, ‘Whenever someone is touched by hardship, they cry out to Us, whether lying on their side, sitting, or standing. But when We relieve their hardship, they return to their old ways as if they had never cried to Us to remove any hardship! This is how the misdeeds of the transgressors have been made appealing to them.’117

Components of the argument from logic:

If we analyse the nature of the rational proof that points to the existence of Allah , we will observe that it is made up of two key components:

1. Instinctive innate concepts.

2. Observation and the senses.

These arguments that prove Allah’s existence are instinctive realities that are innate to man, like the impropriety of preponderance without a cause for preponderance, an effect’s need for a cause, and the principle of causality. Other proofs stem from these arguments. Thus, the existence of something after having been non-existent leads to the question on causality and preponderance: What exactly gave preponderance for the existence of this entity over its non-existence? What was the cause to take it out from nothingness into the world of existence? Likewise, the immaculate design in the construct of the world is an effect that requires a cause, and so on. The presence of this innate component makes this type of argument extremely widespread and easy to understand. It led the Bedouin to utter his famous phrase: ‘Camel dung points to camels. Footprints indicate travel. So the sky with its constellations and the Earth with its valleys – why do they not point to the Sublime, the Omniscient?’

These pick up the observable and perceptible imagery and phenomena of the world. Logic is applied on these observations, enabling a person to derive conclusions – this is the fruit of the evidence-based reasoning process. Creations who understand that the senses point to Allah  know that they are one of His effects. From this viewpoint, each type of creation in Arabic is called ʿālam (literally: world). Ibn Taymiyyah discusses why ʿālam is called ʿālam: ‘ʿĀlam is that which gives knowledge, like khātam is that which is used to seal…Each category of creation is called ʿālam as it is a sign and proof for the Creator – as opposed to ʿālim, who is one who knows, just like khātim, who is the one who seals. He  said, “…but is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the prophets”118

because he was the seal to them.’ Though all creations are indicative of Him , they vary in their level of indication. Though inanimate objects are indicative of Allah , their indication is less than that of living creations. There is a difference between the indication to Allah  by a pebble and that of a human. Part of the varying levels of indication goes back to the nature of matter (the subject area for reasoning) and the nature of the observer (the reasoner).

Though the theist viewpoint on the cognition of Allah  being innate is clear, and that it is possible to leverage rational proofs to remind man of that innate predisposition and to gain contentment in that regard, the arena of argument in circles of philosophy is this: Is it possible to offer rational reasoning for Allah’s existence  or not?

One finds three positions on this: possible; against; and middle positions that are either confused or hesitant to incline either way. Agnostics, for example, do not have a position on the existence of the Divine – they neither accept nor reject His existence. Though some of them are of this view because they feel the evidence on both sides cancel each other out, others of this view state that their agnosticism is because it is impossible for human cognition to arrive at any firm conclusion in this matter. They claim that our cognitive tools are unable to offer any answer to the question of God’s existence. This position negates the possibility that the question of God’s existence can be answered. Before we delve into discussing the details of the proofs that are indicative of His existence, we should quickly deal with the issue of the scope of possibility of knowing God through rational proofs. Can we use our cognitive powers to arrive at an answer in this regard? Though humans who believe in God do not do so by way of empirical or direct sensory means, that has not prevented them from having faith in Him. They believe on the basis of a) the requirement of the fiṭrah, and b) various rational arguments. This is in addition to the evidence brought by the Prophets and Messengers that point not only to His existence but His perfect attributes. To clarify that Allah  can be recognised rationally, it should be noted that everything in existence is one of two types:

• Perceptible through the senses.

• Imperceptibles.

Knowledge of the former can be acquired through the senses. As for the imperceptibles, the knowledge of some can be acquired; some may not. Therefore, it is possible to acquire the knowledge of the existence of some imperceptibles via logic.

When logic determines that something can possibly exist, actualising the knowledge of its existence in the real world requires a more enhanced indicator that would bring that entity out from the realm of the possible to the realm of the actual. This indicator might be a form of transmitted information that leads to its knowledge. For example, a car accident in front of your house is rationally possible, but acquiring the knowledge of the actual event requires direct observation or authentic news. The knowledge of imperceptibles in existence can be acquired via a number of ways, such as authentic reports, or by a remnant. This is the key to answering the central question in this section: It is possible to derive the existence of the cause from the effect. In the example of the car accident, its existence can be assumed based on the accident remnants and the effects that came after it. Being cognisant of this opens up the door for logic to be able to comprehend the existence of the Creator via the effects He causes.

Highlighting the possibility of gaining knowledge of imperceptibles via their effects, Ghazālī  said, ‘It should be known that we have seen existing entities and their reality. They are categorised into those which are perceptible, and those which are known by reasoning, but cannot be engaged with through the senses. The perceptibles are those that are acquired by the five senses, such as: colours (and likewise the knowledge of shapes and quantities) by the sense of sight; noises by the sense of hearing; flavours by the sense of taste; odours by the sense of smell; and roughness, smoothness, softness, cold, warmth, moisture, and dryness by the sense of touch. These entities and other related things are sensorily engaged with, i.e., the power to learn about them is from the senses per se.

‘On the other hand, the existence of some entities is learned and proven through their effects – they are not understood or acquired by the five senses (hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch). For example, these sensory tools themselves: They are indeed powers to acquire knowledge, but they themselves cannot be detected by any of the senses – or the imagination for that matter. Likewise, the same is said for power, knowledge, will, fear, shyness, obsession, anger, and all the traits that we can most certainly detect in others, and this is through a method of reasoning that does not involve our senses. So, whoever writes in front of us, we would be convinced – based on his action – that he has some capability and knowledge of writing and has the will for it. Our certainty of the existence of this is equal to our certainty of the movements of his sensing hand and how black ink is organised into letters on white paper, even though the latter can be seen and the former cannot. In fact, most things in existence are known by the evidence of their effects and cannot be sensed.’119

Based on this, we can conclude that the connection of existing entities to cognition and human understanding is of three levels:

1. Things in existence whose knowledge can be acquired by directly sensing them.

2. Things in existence that do not fall under the direct purview of the senses, though knowledge of them can be gained via their effects, in which case logic would have a role to play in their understanding, and knowledge of them would be via the combination of the senses and logic.

3. Things in existence that do not fall under the purview of the senses, nor does logic have any role to play in their cognition, whether by the effects of those existing entities or by analogising them to other things in existence. So, if these particular existing entities do not come our way via truthful reports that reveal they indeed exist, there would be no pathway to understanding or knowing their existence.

As per the source of knowledge of the entities in existence, the technical term for the first is the perceptibles; the second is rational entities; and the third is scriptural entities. If we ponder over our state and our cognition of our Creator , this would be via both levels two and three. Affirming the existence of Allah  and the core aspects of His perfect attributes can be acquired rationally, yet He has perfect attributes that rationality would be unable to reveal save via revelation. In fact, Allah  has perfect attributes that logic is unable to conceptualise, even if revelation for them came. On this lattermost scenario, Ibn Taymiyyah says, ‘Negating mutual similarity might comprise of affirming attributes of perfection for the Creator without affording any of the same for the creation. So just as there are attributes of the creation that are not affirmed for the Creator, then likewise there are attributes of the Creator that are not affirmed for the creation. However, people do not have the capability of knowing this type in the world, which is why it is not mentioned.’120

Among the scholars who discussed the issue of the possibility of rationally knowing Allah is Muṣṭafā Ṣabrī, in his encyclopaedic book Mawqif al-ʿAql wa al ʿIlm wa al-ʿĀlam min Rabb al-ʿĀlamīn wa-ʿIbādih al-Mursalīn (The Stance of Logic, Knowledge, and the World on the Lord of the Worlds and His Messenger Servants). In this book, he scrutinised the views of the famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant.121

With this preface now complete, we can now discuss the most salient rational pathways that lead to Allah .