The Incoherence Of Atheism by Abdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUjayrī

All praise is for Allah. As to what follows:

In the mid-20th century, the English astrophysicist James Jeans (d. 1946) became extremely famous in England. Jeans used to travel between Oxford and Princeton for his academic duties. At Princeton, he was Professor of Applied Mathematics. He has a number of key contributions in the fields of physics and astronomy, especially in relation to radiation and stellar evolution. He critiqued Laplace’s theory on the formulation of the solar system and proposed an alternate theory.

A number of scientific discoveries have been named after Jeans, such as the Rayleigh-Jeans law, which he refined. The Rayleigh-Jeans law is an approximation of the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation. Another discovery named after him is the Jeans mass, which relates to the birth of stars. It considers the process of gravitational collapse within a gaseous cloud, which leads to the formation of a star. A lunar crater was also named after him. Likewise, a Martian crater was named after him.

Any person reading the intellectual life of James Jeans would immediately notice that he was at the frontier of cosmology and physics, as the two disciplines have merged to a great extent in recent time. Many cosmologists are physicists and vice versa. This is why the American astronomer Lloyd Motz (d. 2004) stated in his book The Story of Physics, ‘We make no apology for including Greek astronomy in our story of physics because astronomy today, more than ever in the past, is accepted as a branch of physics. We need only consider the interrelationships between high-energy physics and cosmology, stellar evolution, and nuclear physics or those between the structure of galaxies and hydro dynamics to see how closely these two branches of knowledge are related. In a sense, the story of physics properly begins with Greek astronomy, because the Greeks were the first to try to understand and explain the movements of the stars and planets in the evening sky.’364

It is not difficult to grasp or explain the cause for this overlap between astronomy and physics, which Motz and his colleague allude to in this passage. Astronomy deals with celestial bodies; physics studies movement, matter, and energy in time and space. It is natural that physics would study the movement and behaviour of these bodies. This is how physicists would find themselves becoming astronomers, and astronomers becoming physicists.

James Jeans did not suffice with writing specialist proposals. Rather, he ascribed himself to a group of specialists who believed in the importance of simplifying the natural sciences for public audiences. Likewise, the British physicist Stephen Hawking wrote his book A Brief History of Time, in which he laid out the foundations of universal cosmology – over 10 million copies of this book were sold and it was translated to multiple global languages. These sorts of writings that address the public reader afford authors a great deal of fame in the media for becoming commentators of the scientific revolution in their respective eras. James Jeans played the same role, especially in the field of cosmology, which happens to be an extremely interesting and thought-provoking subject to the readership of the wider public.

James Jeans is ascribed to the movement that downgrades philosophy in terms of priority, compared to the natural sciences. He believes that philosophy follows the lead of the natural sciences, which are at the forefront of discovery and innovation, in the sense that philosophy only follows up on what has been already discovered by science. According to this movement, philosophy is merely an explanation that comes after the development of science. Jeans says, ‘The philosophy of any period is always largely interwoven with the science of the period, so that any fundamental change in science must produce reactions in philosophy.’365

This somewhat degrading assessment of philosophy, compared to placing the natural sciences on a pedestal, is not the invention of James Jeans. It is in fact a popular viewpoint in Western thought and is widespread among those in the empirical field. It is possible to find an acknowledgement of philosophy playing second fiddle to the sciences in how the leading German philosopher, Hegel (d. 1831), described philosophy. In the end of his introduction to Elements of the Philosophy of Right, he said, ‘The owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the onset of dusk.’366 Minerva is the goddess of wisdom and philosophy in Roman mythology. She had an owl; in their concept, the owl was a symbol of wisdom for its patience and silence throughout the day, and because it chooses uninhabited places. What Hegel meant by this metaphor was that philosophy does not start to operate until the events of the day conclude – it can only follow those events, and it only serves to explain them. What this metaphor therefore means is that philosophy is merely a hermeneutical tool, not the creator of events. There are many other testimonies in Western thought that relegate the importance of philosophy and magnify the natural sciences and their conclusions in medicine, technology, and other areas. This is not the place to expound on that. This is why you see America, for example, which is the vanguard of the sciences and technology, lagging behind in terms of the number of philosophers it produces. On the other hand, Europe, which has fallen behind America, has proportionately a larger number of philosophers. Granville Stanley Hall, an American psychologist, assessed the state of philosophy in America with the following words: ‘Philosophers in America are as rare as snakes in Norway.’367 Hall explained this phenomenon by linking it to the age of the nation, and the nature of jobs and business investments made therein.

One of the most important books written by James Jeans is Physics and Philosophy. It is a comparative study between the method of physicists and their scientific output, and the method of philosophers and their output. In his book, Jeans attempts to prove his viewpoint in detail, which is that the output of philosophers is meagre compared to that of physicists. There are a number of striking details in it. For example, he commented on Kant’s theory and analysed how useful it is, concluding that it did not offer anything significant. He then attempted to switch philosophy to a new thought method in light of the conclusions of physics, such as the concepts of causality, free will, and others.

When a researcher places Jeans in his historical context, he will be able to comprehend precisely the dimensions of this proposal. Jeans’s Physics and Philosophy was born during the era of the scientific revolution, when social life had shifted based on new technologies, discoveries, and innovations that were woven into the fabric of people’s lives. This was the toughest period that philosophy ever endured, known as ‘the fundamental problem of philosophy’. Many scholars – especially empiricists – started asking whether there was any point to philosophy, and questioned whether it had contributed anything meaningful.

One of the most significant proposals that attempted to study this phenomenon and refute its opponents is the article by the English philosopher, Bernard Williams (d. 2003), called ‘On Hating and Despising Philosophy’. He starts off the piece by saying, ‘As long as there has been such a subject as philosophy, there have been people who hated and despised it.’ The key observation offered by Williams is the following: ‘These days, most of those who take this kind of attitude to philosophy are not religious, but scientists, or – more typically – fellow travellers of science, and they take it not in the name of religion but in the interest of an anti-philosophical and confidently puritanical view of science.’368 Naturally, Williams was not pleased with this situation. He wrote this article to refute the view that denigrated philosophy after the scientific revolution. The phenomenon of mocking philosophy and magnifying the importance of science is extremely widespread among the Western scientific community. This leads us to the following question: Why is it the case that a generation of Western influenced and educated Arab youth are quite commonly reading the Western philosophers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, but are not as strong when it comes to developing their knowledge in science? This requires some analysis and introspection. I will attempt to offer an explanation for it. In my estimation, this generation of Arab youth reads the works of Arab philosophers who had studied philosophy in the West, but they did not read the Arab scientists. As a result, the Arab philosophers led them to the Western philosophical tradition, causing them to think that the advancement of the West is a result of Western philosophy. This result was natural and inevitable, given that the Arab thinkers offered what they had. This is also why we witness a generation of Arab youth who are officially studying medicine, engineering, and the sciences spending their free time reading the philosophers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, instead of disseminating modern science in their countries. This is indeed both a strange and a pitiful sight. Those qualified in the sciences – which our society is in desperate need of – also happen to be avid readers who are refusing to help our society progress, and are instead digging into premodern Western history. Readers can follow our articles on philosophy in regional journals, or in the circles of philosophy in our private groups. What one can notice is that most Western symbols of philosophy that are prevalent in our Arab discourse are part of philosophy’s ‘old guard’, not the contemporary flagbearers of philosophy or the most recent and contemporary renditions of the subject. A keen observer of the state of Arab and regional philosophy will notice that the symbols of philosophy that dominate their discourses are from the 16th century (Luther), 17th century (Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes), 18th century (John Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Kant), 19th century (Bentham, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Spencer, Nietzsche), and others. A reader would know that contemporary knowledge has progressed in leaps and bounds – it is far beyond the conceptualisations of the philosophers who lived before the era of mass technology.

This is why it is feasible to suggest that this generation of youth, which has abandoned the study of the religion and instead taken it upon itself to read premodern Western philosophy – duped into believing that it has switched from the ancient past to modernity – has merely switched from one tradition to another. As these youth label religious texts as ‘yellow books’, we point out that they merely switched from ‘Eastern yellow books’ to ‘Western yellow books’. To use their own expression, they are still in a world of yellowness.

However, what made the cultured Arab youth turn to the books of Western philosophy and abandon the books of Arab science? Perhaps it can be explained by the duet of the propagation of the Arab philosophers and the lackadaisical approach of Arab scientists vis-à-vis simplifying the sciences to the public readership. It can perhaps also be explained by the fact that science requires money, labs, equipment, and financing for scientific research, whereas a man writing on philosophy – which is solely a mental endeavour – can do so in his own room. Because the Arab political regimes have neglected funding for science, minds have turned to philosophy to compensate. Whatever the case may be, we were led into this tangential discussion on the state of Western thought by James Jeans’s denigration of philosophy and magnification of science in his book Physics and Philosophy. The point of this discussion is to briefly introduce readers to James Jeans, the astrophysicist. It is a prelude to an important conversation between him and another person – the Pakistani mathematician, ʿInāyatullāh Mashriqī.

ʿInāyatullāh Mashriqī (d. 1963) was famed for his passion for mathematics. He completed his Masters in the subject when he was 19 years old, breaking all records set before him. In the same year of his graduation (1907), he travelled to Britain so he could continue his studies in mathematics at Cambridge. During his time there, he concluded a number of specialist studies, in conjunction with studying Oriental languages and the sciences. He stayed in Cambridge for five years until 1912, when he travelled back to India.

When ʿInāyatullāh Mashriqī reached his thirties, he had an idea of writing an explanation of the Qur’an in light of modern scientific discoveries – a task that he embarked on and completed. He finished the first volume when he was 36 years old, in 1924, naming it Tazkirah. Attention drew towards him and he was provisionally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, though the Nobel Committee stipulated for it to be translated into a European language, causing him to refuse to accept the award. He said, ‘I do not wish to receive an award that does not acknowledge my Urdu language.’ Even though he specialised in a number of fields in Cambridge and any such translation project could have been easily commissioned, his self-worth as an Indian scholar took precedence. ʿInāyatullāh Mashriqī entered politics, where he assumed a number of governmental roles. Then he went independent and founded a political party called the Khaksar Movement. He also founded a weekly newspaper, called Iṣlāḥ. In addition, he was jailed numerous times. Unfortunately, the picture is not as rosy as it seems. Mashriqī had a number of misconceptions regarding the prophetic tradition (Sunnah), the impact of different prophethoods on legislation, the Islamic theory of hermeneutics, and other areas. For more on the personality of ʿInāyatullāh Mashriqī and his role, refer to the book Allama Inayatullah Mashraqi by Muhammad Mālik, published in Oxford. Note that the book focuses more on his political career.

Now to the core issue, which is to compare the two personalities: the English astrophysicist James Jeans, and the Indian-Pakistani mathematician ʿInāyatullāh Mashriqī. At the same time that ʿInāyatullāh Mashriqī was at Cambridge to further his studies in maths, he met James Jeans, who was teaching at the university. They came to know each other. ʿInāyatullāh Mashriqī relates a story that transpired between them. This story was published by the Nuqoosh magazine in Pakistan, in a special edition dedicated to ʿInāyatullāh Mashriqī’s life. From there, it was copied by the Indian scholar Waḥīduddīn Khān in his book God Arises: Evidence of God in Nature and in Science. In the introduction, he mentioned that the phrase ‘God Arises’ is taken from a verse in the Bible.

Let us turn to this lengthy discussion. Waḥīduddīn Khān says, To sum up, here is an incident which occurred in England, as related by Inayat-ullah Mashriqi: “It was Sunday”, he writes, “the year 1909. It was raining hard. I had gone out on some errand when I saw the famous Cambridge University astronomer, Sir James Jeans, with a Bible clutched under his arm, on his way to Church. Coming closer I greeted him, but he did not reply. When I greeted him again, he looked at me and asked, ‘What do you want?’ ‘Two things’, I replied. ‘Firstly, the rain is pouring down, but you have not opened your umbrella.’ Sir James smiled at his own absent-mindedness and opened his umbrella. ‘Secondly’, I continued, ‘I would like to know that a man of universal fame such as yourself is doing – going to pray in Church?’ Sir James paused for a while, then, looking at me, he said, ‘Come and have tea with me this evening.’ So I went along to his house that afternoon. At exactly 4 o’clock, Lady James appeared. ‘Sir James is waiting for you’, she said. I went inside, where tea was ready on the table. Sir James was lost in thought. ‘What was your question again?’ he asked, and without waiting for an answer, he went off into an inspiring description of the creation of the celestial bodies and the astonishing order to which they adhere, the incredible distances over which they travel and the unfailing regularity which they maintain, their intricate journeys through space in their orbits, their mutual attraction, and that they never wavered from the path chosen for them, no matter how complicated it might be. His vivid account of the Power and Majesty of God made my heart begin to tremble. As for him, the hair on his head was standing up straight. His eyes were shining with awe and wonder. Trepidation at the thought of God’s all-knowing and all-powerful nature made his hands tremble and his voice falter. ‘You know, Inayat-ullah Khan’, he said, ‘when I behold God’s marvellous feats of creation, my whole being trembles in awe at His majesty. When I go to Church I bow my head and say, “Lord, how great you are”, and not only my lips, but every particle of my body joins in uttering these words. I obtain incredible peace and joy from my prayer. Compared to others, I receive a thousand times more fulfilment from my prayer. So tell me, Inayatullah Khan, now do you understand why I go to Church?”’Sir James Jeans’s words left Inayat-ullah Mashriqi’s mind spinning. “Sir”, he said, “your inspiring words have made a deep impression on me. I am reminded of a verse of the Quran which, if I may be allowed, I should like to quote.” “Of course.” Sir James replied. Inayat-ullah Khan then recited this verse: “And in the mountains are streaks of varying shades of white, red, and raven black; just as people, living beings, and cattle are of various colours as well. Of all of Allah’s servants, only the knowledgeable of His might are truly in awe of Him.”369 “What was that?” exclaimed Sir James. “It is those alone who have knowledge who fear God. Wonderful! How extraordinary! It has taken me fifty years of continual study and observation to realize this fact. Who taught it to Muhammad? Is this really in the Quran? If so, you can record my testimony that the Quran’s an inspired Book. Muhammad was illiterate. He could not have learnt this immensely important fact on his own. God must have taught it to him. Incredible! How extraordinary!”’370

This interesting discussion between Jeans and Mashriqī contains many points that would surprise any reader. That Jeans – being the student of astronomy that he was – was deeply influenced by the Qur’anic verse and was able to tearfully offer his improvised perspective was a scene that would animate any human heart with faith. Because Mashriqī was younger than Jeans, and given that the latter was visibly influenced by the faith in Allah that Mashriqī had, this in turn had a deep influence in shoring up the youngster’s faith in Allah, as if Jeans was a godsend for him.

This wonderful universe with all its galaxies, stars, planets, moons, orbital movements, and planetary systems led Professor Jeans to seek out the religion closest to him, which happened to be Christianity. Imagine what would have been the case had he known the Preserved Book of Allah and saw the wondrous scientific, legislative, rhetorical, and spiritual inimitability therein. Also consider that Jeans was shocked to learn the statement of Allah ‘It is those alone who have knowledge who fear God’, testifying that the Qur’an is the truth. It is indeed wondrous how the Qur’an makes human hearts feel. One key aspect of this discussion was how you can see Professor Jeans was in agreement with his innate human fiṭrah, as he glorified Allah and said, ‘Lord, how great You are.’ Imagine what would have been the case had he known the guidance of the Messenger of Allah , and how he conversed with Allah with the best of remembrance phrases and at the best of occasions, so much so that his feet became swollen as he stood in prayer. In addition, look at how Professor Jeans was overcome by peace and contentment as he conversed with Allah as he glorified Him. Imagine what would have been the result had he tasted the peace offered by the Qur’an, the contentment offered by the vigil (tahajjud) prayer, and the sweet taste of humility and submission in front of Allah.

All these elements in the glorification of Allah manifested for Professor Jeans, as he contemplated the wonders of the heavens and the Earth, so much so that he ended up testifying that the Qur’an and the prophethood of Muhammad  are true. Indeed, Allah spoke the truth: ‘We will show them Our signs in the universe and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that this Quran is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a Witness over all things?’371

These feelings that Professor Jeans felt, as he contemplated the great wonders of the heavens and the Earth and the beauty of astronomy, was presented to many people other than him as well. Immanuel Kant (d. 1804) was a leading figure in German philosophy. In his trilogy on moral philosophy, he started the conclusion to the second book with an interesting expression: ‘Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above and the moral law within.’372

When you ponder over what Kant said as he related these feelings in himself, and then you look at the central position that Kant holds within philosophy in general and German philosophy in particular, you will inevitably reach the spectacular conclusion that even a person who was deeply entrenched in these complex disciplines could not but be animated by the astronomical signs in the heaven.

Let us look beyond this class of scientists and philosophers. Let us look at a class that is more honourable, pure, and knowledgeable than them – the leaders of Islamic knowledge and faith. If we analyse this class of scholars, I for one cannot look past the story that Abū Ḥafṣ al-Bazzār (d. 749 AH) relates, which he records in his book al-Aʿlām al-ʿAliyyah fī Manāqib Ibn Taymiyyah. Bazzār’s book, in my view, is the best that has ever been written that records the virtues of Ibn Taymiyyah. Yes, the biographies written by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī and Ibn Kathīr have more details in some areas; however, Bazzār relates the subtle mannerisms of how Ibn Taymiyyah dealt with issues throughout the day and night. We cannot find this exposition elsewhere. Even the manner in which Ibn Taymiyyah recited takbīr and opened his prayer is recorded. Maybe the reason for this was that Bazzār was extremely interested in recording the personal life and times of Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah used to keep Bazzār close to him. Bazzār says, ‘When I was residing in Damascus, I was with him for almost all of the day and most of the night. He would make me sit next to him.’373 I am envious of anyone who has not yet read al-Aʿlām al-ʿAliyyah, for it is indeed the most joyous read.

This story about Ibn Taymiyyah, which Bazzār relates, is connected to our topic on astronomy. Immediately after the Fajr prayer, Ibn Taymiyyah had a routine. Bazzār says, ‘Then he would start off by remembering Allah. Everyone knew that after the Fajr prayer, his habit was to not be spoken to without a dire need. He would continue to remember Allah in a voice he would be able to hear; sometimes it would be in a voice that someone sitting nearby would be able to hear. During this time, he would frequently raise his gaze to the sky. This was his routine until the Sun would rise and the unlawful time for prayer would pass.’374

Look at how much Abū al-ʿAbbās Ibn Taymiyyah used to look at the kingdom of the heavens and the Earth after the Fajr prayer, as he remembered Allah. He turned his gaze to the heaven as that helped him focus on the magnificence of the Divine. The only reason why raising the gaze to the heaven is not allowed in prayer is because it is a place to be humble and respectful; apart from that, there is no prohibition on raising the gaze to the heaven. The Prophet  used to turn his face to the sky as he yearned for the switching of the qiblah: ‘Indeed, We see you O Prophet turning your face towards heaven. Now We will make you turn towards a direction of prayer that will please you.’375

One of the best ways to leverage astronomy as a gateway to faith, which far exceeds that which is mentioned by ordinary people, is what happened to Ibrāhīm  vis-à-vis the celestial bodies. Allah mentions in his Book that He showed Ibrāhīm  ‘the wonders of the heavens and the Earth’ to achieve a clear result: ‘so he would be sure in faith’. Which proof can possibly be greater than this? It shows that astronomy is a way of ascent to faith. What can be greater than the celestial bodies and their behaviours in being a staircase for the heart to rise above doubts to reach certainty? ‘We also showed Abraham the wonders of the heavens and the Earth, so he would be sure in faith.’376

Look at the wonders of the heavens and the Earth. Anyone who does this would end up in the paradise of certainty. Allah invites us to look at the wonders of the heavens and the Earth: ‘Have they ever reflected on the wonders of the heavens and the Earth…?’377 In any case, whoever reads the story of astrophysicist James Jeans, and his animation over the magnificence of Allah’s making and the innovation in His system that led him to tears…Whoever looks at Kant’s statement when he discussed how he was impacted and awed whenever he looked at the starry heaven above us…Whoever ponders how Ibn Taymiyyah would turn his gaze to the sky after the Fajr prayer until the Sun would rise… And after all of this, he reads the statement of Allah: ‘We also showed Abraham the wonders of the heavens and the Earth, so he would be sure in faith…’378 He would have learned one of the great secrets of the Qur’an that implants certainty in the hearts and minds of humans.

Whenever a person thinks carefully of the last passage – ‘so he would be sure in faith’ – the great doors to iḥsān would open up for him. It is the highest station of the religion, sitting above īmān and islām. It means to worship Allah as if you are seeing Him, denoting a very strong sense of belief. When you see the stars shining in front of your eyes, use that opportunity to ascend to the summit of conviction. Allah knows best. May Allah send benedictions and salutations on our Prophet Muhammad, his Family, and his Companions.

15 Shawwāl, 1433 AH.