The Incoherence Of Atheism by Abdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUjayrī

In theological discussions, the existence of Allah is an issue that’s central, and highly consequential. It is the foundation upon which all theological discourses are based. In fact, it is the fundamental delineator. It is in its light that the entire theological outlook of a believer is set up – for himself, his life, and the world around him.

I would hope to believe the statement above is obvious, and that it is part and parcel of the self-evident theological assertions of theism that require no specific proof. Having faith in Allah  is the pivot, around which all the conceptualisations of a believer revolve. There is no religious concept that is void of this element. This is why there is no difference of opinion among the affiliates of Islam – from the ancients to the contemporaries – that recognising Allah and affirming His existence is the most important fundamental of faith. It precedes all other theological discussions. Without it, any other Islamic belief – such as the monotheism of Allah in worship and lordship, belief in the prophethood of the Prophet , and belief that the Qur’an is Allah’s Book – cannot be attained. Though the above consensus exists among Muslims, there is a difference in the nature of this affirmation, its source, and where it is positioned in the soul. Is the affirmation of Allah imprinted on the soul, or is it acquired knowledge that requires analysis of the evidence?

Let us look at how revelation dealt with this issue, what ancient Muslim scholars said about this, how man and his nature are constructed, and what we innately find in our own selves. We would find that the correct position is that knowledge of the Divine is innate. The recognition of the Creator  represents instinctive and imprinted information that is firmly entrenched in the soul. It is like other instinctive knowledge that does not require any proof. Yet, this innate predisposition can become corrupted and cause an imbalance in man’s inner compass. In such a situation, analysis and proof would be required to remind man of that innate predisposition, not to establish it in him. ‘Affirming the Maker is innately predisposed, instinctive, and self-evident. It is not predicated on analysis or evidence.’11 However, ‘even though it is instinctively known to those with uncorrupted predispositions, many people need analysis. Sometimes, man is not in need of it; in other occasions, he is’.12

So, even though admitting that ‘the innate aspects of knowledge are gained when the predisposition is sound and uncorrupted, that predisposition can become corrupted and ill, leading it to see the truth as falsehood. An example of this is the body when it becomes ill – it might find that something sweet is sour, or it might suffer from double vision. Such instances would have to be treated to remove the illness’.13 Based on this, ‘whosoever gains gnosis or faith…without analysis, it would not be incumbent on him to do so; for those who cannot do so, it would be incumbent on them’.14

Analysis and the ability to produce evidence for Allah’s existence are not from the universal obligations, as knowledge of this can be achieved by the soul’s intuition. However, it does become incumbent on man when the recognition of the Divine is absent from his innate predisposition. This process would be to remind the soul what its predisposition would have dictated. The obligation of analysis and evidence here would act as a mechanism to achieve the primary obligation of affirming the existence of Allah.It is, however, unsubstantiated to claim that analysis and evidence for Allah’s existence is a universal obligation. Another false claim is that the first obligation on a religiously liable person is:

• to know of Allah’s existence.

• to conduct analysis that leads to cognition.

• to have the intention to conduct analysis, or.

• to be in two minds about Allah’s existence before intending to conduct analysis.

Man can recognise the existence of Allah  via his innate predisposition. Whoever is afflicted by doubt in this regard must work to expel such uncertainties. The verified position in this regard is that which Ibn Taymiyyah  mentioned: ‘The first religious obligation can differ based on the variety of people’s situations. What might be the first obligation on one person might not be so on another.’15 Likewise, restricting the ways of analysis to acquire knowledge to one or a few methods is incorrect. Any proper evidence that leads to this knowledge is legislated for anyone who requires it. The most such evidence can offer is to remind a person of his original predisposition. Ibn Taymiyyah  says, ‘As the ways of recognising and acknowledging Allah are varied, various groups of theologians adopted a method to ascertain knowledge of Him, believing that their method was the only way. This is a gross error. It is a position not grounded in knowledge.’16

He adds: ‘There is no Messenger who, when he first called his people, said, “You are commanded to seek the recognition of the Creator, so conduct analysis and derive evidence for it so that you may recognise Him.” They were not made liable to first gain that recognition, nor were they made liable to access the evidence that led to that recognition. Their hearts already knew Him and affirmed Him. Every newborn is born upon the fiṭrah (innate and imprinted predisposition of the soul). However, this predisposition can be altered. When man is reminded, he is reminded of his predisposition. This is why Allah said to Mūṣā, “Speak to him gently, so perhaps he may be mindful” of the knowledge that is in his fiṭrah, which will enable him to know his Lord, how He favoured him, how He was good to him, and how he is dependent on Him. That will invite him to faith.’17

Analysis and deriving evidence have an additional benefit as well. If executed in the proper religious manner, this can lead to greater faith and entrench the fiṭrah in the heart. Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Samʿānī said, ‘We do not deny the type of analysis that is endorsed by the Qur’an and prophetic tradition, for this allows a believer to increase in faith, calm his soul, and gain contentment in his heart.’18

The increase in belief brought about by any proper analysis is not limited to merely affirming the existence of Allah . Rather it allows a servant to gain an enhanced insight into the perfect characteristics of his Lord  and acknowledge that He is complete in His power, will, knowledge, wisdom, mercy, and the like. This analysis and contentment offer similar to what Ibrāhīm al-Khalīl  gained: ‘“My Lord! Show me how you give life to the dead.” Allah responded, “Do you not believe?” Ibrāhīm replied, “Yes I do, but just so my heart can be reassured.”’19

With sound rational analysis, a believer can acquire greater contentment for the heart. This is legislated and is further emphasised in situations when there are doubts and potential objections swirling around a person.

The argument from fiṭrah allows man to obtain synoptic knowledge of His Lord . However, the fiṭrah is unable to offer him a more rounded and complete knowledge of Him; it is here that the role of revelation kicks into play, revealing to the servant the details of His perfect and magnificent attributes that allow him to have a deeper connection with His Lord .

In the evidence of the Shariah, there are pointers to the element of the fiṭrah existing in the soul, albeit with ambiguity surrounding what this element requires and what meanings it comprises of. What is clear is that these texts of the Shariah depict it as a religious imprint. Consider what Allah  said: ‘So be steadfast in faith in all uprightness O Prophet – the natural Way of Allah which He has instilled in all people. Let there be no change in this creation of Allah. That is the Straight Way, but most people do not know.’20

Ibn Kathīr explained this: ‘So turn your face straight. Continue upon that which Allah legislated for you – the monotheistic religion of Ibrāhīm, which Allah has guided you to and perfected for you. With this, hold fast to your sound fiṭrah, upon which Allah created the creation, for He  created His creation so they could recognise Him, consider Him to be one, and believe there is no god besides Him.’21 Similar to the above verse is the following verse: ‘This is the natural Way of Allah. And who is better than Allah in ordaining a way? And we worship none but Him.’22 As for Allah’s statement ‘Let there be no change in this creation of Allah’, Ibn Kathīr  said in his Tafsīr, ‘Some said it means “Do not change the creation of Allah” – people had changed from the fiṭrah upon which Allah had created them. Therefore, this verse would be read as a command shrouded by a proposition, like “Whoever enters it is safe”23, i.e., protect those who enter it. This is a sound and proper interpretation. Others said that this is an actual statement of fact, which means that Allah  equalised all His creation by creating them on the unadulterated condition of the fiṭrah, nobody is born without this being programmed into him, and there is no disparity between people in this regard.’24

On the same theme of fiṭrah and the true religion is the famous narration from Abū Hurayrah : ‘The Prophet  said, “Every newborn is born on fiṭrah. It is his parents who make him into a Jew, Christian, or Magian. It is just like a beast that is born as a whole – do you find some among them maimed?”’ Abū Hurayrah  then read: ‘The natural Way of Allah which He has instilled in all people. Let there be no change in this creation of Allah. That is the Straight Way.’25 It is reported on the authority of ʿIyāḍ al-Mujāshiʿī that, one day, the Messenger of Allah  said in his sermon, ‘Behold, my Lord commanded me that I should teach you that which you do not know. From what He has taught me today is this: “Every property I have conferred upon the servant is lawful. I created all My servants with a natural inclination to the worship of Allah. It is satans who turn them away from the right religion. He makes unlawful what has been declared lawful for them, and he commands them to ascribe partners unto Me, although he has no justification for that…”’26

Like the previous verses, this narration reveals the element of an innate predisposition that begets religiosity. This religiosity is rightly guided and not perverted. It comprises of the cognition of Allah. No type of religiosity can be envisaged without this foundation. In fact, it is apparent that this religiosity begets the monotheism of Allah  in both His lordship and worship.In addition, the scriptural text contains pointers to the specific meaning of the cognition of Allah  as one of the central elements of fiṭrah: ‘And remember when your Lord brought forth from the loins of the children of Adam their descendants and had them testify regarding themselves. Allah asked, “Am I not your Lord?” They replied, “Yes, You are! We testify.” He cautioned, “Now you have no right to say on Judgement Day, ‘We were not aware of this.’”’27 Scholars differ over the interpretation of this verse:

1. Some scholars are of the view that the narrations on the exegesis of this verse are authentic. They say that the verse alludes to a discussion that occurred between the Lord and the children of Adam, which was about bringing them together in the ‘world of souls’ and making them testify. One such narration is reported by Ibn ʿAbbās that the Prophet  said, ‘Allah took the pact from the back (i.e., loins) of Adam at Naʿmān, i.e., ʿArafah. He brought out from his loins every single one of his children He created. He spread them out in front of Him, like small particles. Then He spoke to them…’28.

2. Others are of the view that the testimony mentioned here alludes to the fiṭrah that testifies in favour of Allah . The act of bringing them forth and making them testify was simply about creating them in a manner that would trigger affirming Him and His lordship in the worldly life.

Regardless of the preferred view, and the arguments and counterarguments that can be made for both, this verse encompasses the concept of fiṭrah from two angles. According to the first view, the indication would be that the soul bears the element that requires affirming Allah . It would be a remnant of that event that occurred to all people in the realm of souls. Therefore, man’s fiṭrah – even though he may have forgotten that event – would be a remnant of that event. As for the second view, it is the more obvious and direct meaning of the verse. One verse which also denotes that part of the fiṭrah is to acknowledge the existence of Allah  is what the Messengers said in response to the disbelievers. The Qur’an says, ‘Their messengers came to them with clear proofs, but they put their hands over their mouths and said, “We totally reject what you have been sent with, and we are certainly in alarming doubt about what you are inviting us to.” Their messengers asked them, “Is there any doubt about Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the Earth? He is inviting you in order to forgive your sins and delay your end until your appointed term.”’29

As mentioned by Ibn Kathīr in his Tafsīr, the sentence ‘Is there any doubt about Allah?’ can mean one of two things: ‘One possibility is that this means “Is there any doubt in the existence of Allah?” This is because human predispositions testify to His existence and are conditioned to affirm Him. Acknowledging Him is instinctive to the sound fiṭrah. However, some may have been subjected to doubt and confusion, and would therefore require analysis of evidence that leads to affirming His existence. This is why the Messengers, when instructing their people to His recognition, said: “Originator of the heavens and the Earth” – He is the One Who created and innovated them without any template. The testimonies of temporality, creation, and facilitation are obvious therein – they must therefore require a Maker, Who is Allah, the One Who is the only God, the Creator of everything, the Divine, and the Owner. ‘The second possibility in the meaning of “Is there any doubt in Allah?” is “Is there any doubt in His divinity and His oneness in His right to being worshipped?” He is the Creator of everything that is in existence. Nobody other than Him has the right to be worshipped. He is alone and without partner. Most nations affirmed the Maker but worshipped intermediaries as well, thinking that they benefited them or brought them closer to Allah.’30

It would seem that the context of this Qur’anic passage favours the latter meaning, given that what those disbelievers doubted was the message of the Messengers. It is known that their message was all about monotheism of Allah in worship. However, the wording denotes doubting in Allah from any angle, which would include doubting His existence; the generality of the word is taken into consideration, as per the rules of Islamic scriptural hermeneutics. Therefore, the verse would reveal proofs that are to be used in response to those who have doubts in Allah:

1. Fiṭrah, which is what is intended by ‘Is there any doubt in Allah?’. It calls upon the fiṭrah inside the soul to denounce any doubt in Allah.

2. Logic, as per the statement of the Messengers: ‘The Originator of the heavens and the Earth’. This evidence is actually using the effect to prove the effector. There would be no room to doubt the existence of the Effector when the effects of His creation are manifest across the heavens and Earth.

These are some of the scriptural indications that reveal the presence of the cognition of Allah  in the soul. The default for someone with sound fiṭrah is that there is no need for him to engage in analysis and evidence, but rather this is a belief that is imprinted onto the unadulterated soul and leads the servant to acknowledging his Lord  and affirming His lordship and divinity.

When we say the innateness of cognition of the Divine, what is not intended is that it is present in the soul ever since man is born. Allah  states in the Qur’an, ‘And Allah brought you out of the wombs of your mothers while you knew nothing, and gave you hearing, sight, and intellect so perhaps you would be thankful.’31 Rather, what is intended from the innateness of cognition is that it is an imprint on the soul, which would ultimately kick into action once the prerequisites of acknowledging Allah are met and the obstacles to that are removed. Without this sequence of events, it is possible that the fiṭrah does not kick into action. This can happen because of an external element corrupting the soul. The Prophet  alerted people to this fact: ‘Every newborn is born on fiṭrah. It is his parents who make him into a Jew, Christian, or Magian.’ Explaining this, Ibn Taymiyyah said, ‘When it is said that a person is born on the fiṭrah of Islam, or that he was born a monotheist (ḥanīf), etc., it does not mean that he knows about – or wants – this religion from the moment he left his mother’s womb. Allah says, “And Allah brought you out of the wombs of your mothers while you knew nothing.”32 However, what his fiṭrah does is that it begets the faith of Islam in order for him to recognise it and love it. A soul upon the fiṭrah triggers an acknowledgement and love of its Creator, and the sincere devotion of faith for Him. The requirements of fiṭrah are gained gradually according to how perfectly intact the fiṭrah is, depending on to what extent it was safeguarded from anything that contradicts it.’33

Reality testifies that man’s inclination to faith in Allah , and the inclination to theism, are core elements inside him. One indicator of this phenomenon is the requirement and alertness of the fiṭrah when facing hardships and tough times. Whenever any affliction or major calamity befalls man, an incontrollable feeling is sparked in his soul that he cannot repel. This suggests that there is a higher power who is able to repel it and save him. In such situations, he would find within himself the need to beseech his Lord to deliver him from this calamity. The Qur’an points to this meaning in verses such as: ‘When one is touched with hardship, they cry out to their Lord, turning to Him alone.’34

‘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.”’35

After mentioning the evidence for the existence of Allah , Rāzī said, ‘When man faces a great test or a huge calamity, he loses all hope in that he feels nobody in the creation can come to his aid. It is as if he – invoking his original state of creation and the requirement of his basic nature – is begging the one who can grant him deliverance and take him out of his predicament. This is nothing other than the testimony of fiṭrah by him acknowledging his need for the Creator, the Planner.’36 The English aphorism says, ‘There are no atheists in foxholes.’ Generally, most scholars – even atheist ones – affirm this innate understanding inside the soul, even though atheists obviously do not refer to it as the fiṭrah. Theism transcends the environmental context of one’s upbringing or external influences that may have influenced this predisposition. It is indeed a core feature in man. Testimonies in favour of this are numerous and manifest in various cognitive aspects of life. Human history tells us that religion is a central feature in all civilisations and nations. Anthropological studies underscore this by revealing that the phenomenon of religion was widespread across all human societies. Psychology, sociology, and other branches of social science state the same. In fact, there are now dedicated fields of specialised study that focus specifically on this phenomenon. One such branch of study, which was only just recently spun off from neuroscience, is neurotheology. It discusses the nature of the connection between man’s neuro-structure and religiosity. ‘Religion is hardwired in humans’ is a maxim that is widely known in this field of study, denoting that religion is natural to man and a core human component. One interesting expression, which is a play on the term homo sapiens (wise human), is the one used by Karen Armstrong in her book A History of God, where she suggested that we are in fact homo religious (religious humans). In fact, studies have reached the point where they are searching for the actual gene responsible for the religious disposition inside man. The American geneticist Dean Hamer published a book in 2005 called The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into our Genes. Others have conducted a search for the area of the brain responsible for this disposition. They proposed a number of assumptions which state that there are centres inside the brain responsible for the spiritual side of humans. Such studies include those conducted by Professor Andrew Newberg, who has a number of interviews, discussions, and lectures in this regard. He also co-authored a book with Mark Robert Waldman, called How God Changes Your Brain.

Professor Kevin Nelson, a neuroscientist, has a study that focuses on the spiritual aspect of man: The God Impulse: Is Religion Hardwired into Our Brains? In this book, he states, ‘On the other hand, my work also irks some die hard atheists, because it inextricably links spirituality with what it means to be human and makes it an integral part of all of us, whether our reasoning brain likes it or not.’37 The point here is not about giving credence to everything in these studies, or to agree with their conclusions, as they are points of scientific contention. Some of these works even deny the workings of what we as Muslims would consider to be instrumental in the topic, such as the existence of the soul. In a nutshell, there is no rational impediment to the notion that the biological construct of man has an impact on religiosity. There is no impediment to the idea that Allah biologically created us so that we are amenable to faith. However, restricting the discussion to the biological angle alone is no doubt a mistake, as this focuses only on a materialistic and naturalistic viewpoint.

The point of mentioning these studies is to highlight that there is a point to these types of investigations. The concept of affirming the existence of Allah  is so deeply ingrained in humankind that it warrants further study and investigation. One phrase found in anthropological and religio-sociological studies is that which was stated by the Greek historian, Plutarch. He said, ‘If we traverse the world, it is possible to find cities without walls, without letters, without kings, without wealth, without coinage, without schools and theatres; but a city without a temple, or that which does not practise worship, prayer, and the like, no one ever saw.’ What I have observed is that many proponents of New Atheism do not discuss the inclination towards religiosity head on. Rather, they explain it away using materialistic and Darwinist explanations, though this suggests they begrudgingly accept the existence of this inclination. Darwinist interpretations of life are based on the search for either a) the advantages of living for living beings or b) the causes of their existence if those advantages are not primarily intended or are considered inconsequential but are just a by-product of the natural selection process for life and the survival of humankind. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argued that the result of religiosity and faith is borne out of the child’s inclination to believe its parents in everything they say. In Darwinist terms, the inclination developed during this process has the benefit of keeping the child safe from what is harmful to it. When its parents warn it from coming close to fire or falling, it would be in its interest to possess the inclination of believing them.

The problem, as he sees it, is that a child is unable to discern right from wrong. This is why, he claims, children are inoculated with the virus of faith. This is how the virus of faith spreads and is passed down generation to generation. It takes hold of societies across the world. Dawkins has an episode that aired on Channel 4 in the UK, entitled as The Virus of Faith, which is a part of his The Root of All Evil documentary series. It is interesting to note that in one of his television discussions, Dawkins was asked about a child who believes in Santa Claus but realises that it is a mythical person after growing up, and why the same does not happen when it comes to God. He was unable to offer a response. Furthermore, in his book Why People Believe Strange Things, Michael Shermer explained away this religious instinct by stating that those among our ancestors who had an inclination for fearing the unseen were better suited for survival than those who did not have any such inclination. To clarify, when a noise is heard from the bush, it might be something that is unharmful, but it can also be a predator. One opting for caution, preparing a response to it, and running away from it – even if there is nothing of danger there – would be more suited for survival than one who does not prepare any defence. It is possible that there is actually something harmful lurking in the bush. This is represented in the inclination of fearing the unknown and the unseen, which evolved – he claims – to a religiously flavoured inclination. It is clear that Darwinism is dominated, even at a moral level, by the tendency to switch from a simple idea to a variety of complex ideas. This is why in his book Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett dedicated a chapter to this issue, which he named ‘Religion as a natural phenomenon’. In objection to these sorts of ideas, what the Darwinist atheist Jerry Coyne has said is sufficient: ‘There is an increasing (and disturbing) tendency of psychologists, biologists, and philosophers to Darwinize every aspect of human behavior, turning its study into a scientific parlor game. But imaginative reconstructions of how things might have evolved are not science; they are stories.’38

One strange phenomenon that is found in many atheists is that they strive to fill the gap left by their denial of Allah’s existence and their abandonment of religion. One interesting event that occurred in this regard was the call launched by the Swiss atheist, Alain de Botton, under the banner ‘Atheism 2.0’. It was an attempt to update atheism by acknowledging that it contained many holes, and that aspects of the religions can be taken to fill those in. He has a famous TED lecture in this regard, which he delivered just before he published his book Religion for Atheists. The famous atheist Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, wrote a book called Waking Up: Searching for Spirituality Without Religion, in which he postulated a spiritual aspect to atheism. More recently, I came across a book written by Frank Schaeffer with an odd and puzzling title: Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God. As a result of the gap felt by many atheists, they have started to establish liturgical atheist societies (of sorts) that resemble those found in religious groups. In fact, some of these societies have started up what are known as ‘churches of atheism’, which have spread across a number of countries including Canada, Britain, America, and other nations. They have also begun quasi-religious festivals to commemorate key atheist events, such as Darwin Day, Atheist Day, and even Blasphemy Day. The lattermost festival was announced in 2009 by the Center of Inquiry (CFI), and is held on 30 September. This day was chosen because it was the very date in which the Danish newspapers released the infamous images that disparaged the Prophet .

I debated a young atheist once. During the discussion, he mentioned to me that he yearned for those days in which he could attain some contentment via prostration, and that it brought about a wave of indescribably great feelings inside of him. But he went on to say that, with persistent doubts and objections, he is unable to return to what he described as a blind form of faith. This is a type of yearning for heaven.39 ‘There is a need in the heart that cannot be met by anything apart from Allah . There is a disorder of sort therein, which cannot be taken care of without turning to Him. There is a sickness in it that cannot be cured without sincerity to Him and worshipping Him alone. The heart continues to strike the person it resides in until it is content and comfortable with its God. Only then can it entertain the spirit of life and acquire its taste, after which he would be able to gain a life other than that which is spent by the heedless who turn away from this matter.’ If it is thought that man stands alone40, then verily, man does not stand alone.41 39 Al-Ḥanīn ilā al-Samā’ (Yearning for Heaven) is an excellent book written by Hānī Nasīrah. The book is a study of the switch to Islamic ideology within Egyptian society during the second half of the 20th century.

40 Man Stands Alone is the title of a book by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, the infamous atheist and the so-called ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’.

41 Man Does Not Stand Alone is the title of a famous book written by A. Cressy Morrison. Unfortunately, this captivating title by the author – which he wrote in response to the aforementioned book – was altered on the cover of its Arabic translation to a lesser title, which is translated into English as Science Calls to The indicator of the fiṭrah is sufficient in itself to bring about conviction vis à-vis the existence of Allah  for most people, without the need to resort to evidence-based reasoning. When most people look at their innermost selves, they would find this element present. It suffices them from producing evidence and proofs to support this. However, sufficing with the fiṭrah is insufficient when debating atheists, as they would simply deny the existence of this inclination, whether a) in spite of knowing it exists, b) because some actually do have an actual objection to it, causing them to not feel the existence of their Maker, or c) they do not consider its existence – which some would affirm – to be evidence for the Maker. The latter group would argue that its existence might just be a baseless human instinct, which Darwinism exposed as being for the mere advantage of the species’ survival. Cognitively speaking, there is absolutely no confidence in such an inclination being accurate. This leads us to take the discussion on the argument from fiṭrah for the existence of Allah to the next level. After that, we will tackle the principles of rational inference for this issue.