The Incoherence Of Atheism by Abdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUjayrī

This argument has multiple names in the religious space generally, and in the Islamic domain in particular. They all revolve around the central idea that whatever comes into existence after having been non-existent must have a cause that preferred its existence over its non-existence. They also comprise of the idea that whatever is possible is most definitely contingent on a non-contingent cause that created it.122 That cause is Allah . Some of the names for this argument are: the argument from creation, the argument from invention, the prime mover argument, the kalam argument, universal causation, the argument from first cause, the causal argument, the argument from the universe, the cosmological argument, and others.

One who ponders over this proof will find it to be the simplest of all the indicators that are suggestive of Allah . This explains why this argument is widespread across all civilisations, cultures, and nations. The motivation behind it is an instinctive question seeking the cause of observable and perceived temporal events. Though its scenarios and names are varied, its basis lies in two extremely clear propositions:

• First proposition: Temporal events exist. A temporal event is that which was preceded by its non-existence, or anything that has a beginning.

• Second proposition: Temporal events point to the existence of a cause.

• Conclusion: Temporal events in existence must have a cause, which is Allah .

Explaining the foundation of this argument in al-Kashf ʿan Manāhij al-Adillah (Revealing the Methodologies of the Arguments), Ibn Rushd (Averroes) the grandson123 said, As for the argument from invention, it captures the existence of fauna, flora, and the heavens. This method is based on two principles that are firmly present in the innate predispositions of all people. The first is that these existing entities are invented. This is something automatically known from fauna and flora, as He  said, “…those idols you invoke besides Allah can never create so much as a fly, even if they all were to come together for that.”124 We see inanimate bodies in which life is created. We definitely know that there is an entity that creates and favours them with life here, which is Allah . As for the heavens, we know from their unfaltering movements that they have been commanded to look after what is here in the world, and that they have been subjugated for our benefit. Something that is subjugated is, by necessity, invented and commanded by something else. As for the second principle, it is that every invented thing has an inventor. Therefore, one can correctly deduce from these two propositions that something in existence125 has a doer that originated it.126

We can note the observation that Ibn Rushd makes. He differentiated between how fauna and flora are indicative of origination, vesus how heavens are indicative of the same. For the former, he considered it self-evident; for the latter he considered the sign of their subjugation as the sign for their origination. Based on this, we can say the indicators of temporal events for Allah  are of two levels. This is based on how close or remote temporal events are from being capturable by the senses and observation, and the potential of them being observable and perceptible to the senses when emerging:

• The temporal emergence of individually observable creations.

• The temporal emergence of the world (the genus of temporal events).

When we contemplate the nature of how revelation dealt with this argument, we notice that the first level is more present. This is because it is perceptible by the senses, which is the quickest way to acquiring the aim without the need for lengthy propositions, expansive philosophical argumentation, or proving something that is not present or observable. Explaining the Qur’anic method here, and highlighting that observable temporal events are not in need for evidence to demonstrate their temporality, Ibn Taymiyyah states, ‘The method mentioned in the Qur’an is by reasoning for the temporality of man and other beings – whose temporality is known by observation and similar means – in order to demonstrate the existence of the Creator . The Originator can be argued for by the origination of man. Man’s origination does not need to be reasoned by associating him with change, temporality, or the necessity of temporal events being terminal.

The difference between reasoning through his temporality and reasoning for his temporality is evident. What is in the Qur’an is the first, not the second. Allah  says, “Or were they created by nothing, or are they their own creators?”127 Consequently, the mere temporal emergence of fauna, flora, metals, rain, clouds, and similar is known by necessity; it is in fact witnessed and does not need proof. Only that which is not necessarily known through the senses is to be learned via proof. The temporality of these beings is instinctive knowledge that does not require evidence. It is known either sensorily or instinctively, whether by way of being informed that can offer instinctive knowledge, or by other ways of necessary knowledge. The emergence of man from seminal fluid is like the emergence of fruits from trees and flora from the Earth, etc. It is sensorily known that this same fruit is emergent, coming into existence after having not occurred; the same applies to man and others. Allah  states, “Do such people not remember that We created them before, when they were nothing?”128, and He  says, “An angel replied, ‘So will it be! Your Lord says, “It is easy for Me, just as I created you before, when you were nothing!”129’130

One subtle point that Ibn Taymiyyah alluded to is the state of familiarity or the lack thereof vis-à-vis observing a particular event, and the impact this state has on a person becoming heedless of the indicators that are easily accessible to him. Ibn Taymiyyah  says, ‘This is why the fiṭrah of the creation is wired so that whenever they see a newly emerging event – such as thunder, lightning, and earthquakes – they remember and glorify Allah. This is because they know that this recurrence did not recur by itself, but rather there was an Originator who caused it to originate. Though they know the same is applicable to all other newly emerging events, the events they are used to are already familiarised to them, as opposed to the rarely recurring ones. Otherwise, those who mostly remember and glorify Allah when newly emerging events that are rare appear would have already seen those oft-recurring signs of Allah that are far greater than the rare event. Had Allah done nothing other than create man, that alone would be the greatest of signs. Everyone knows that man was not created by himself, his parents, or anyone else from humankind. Everyone knows that he must have had an originator. Everyone knows he must have had a Creator that created him, and that He is present, alive, omniscient, omnipotent, all-hearing, and all seeing. One who creates other living things is worthier of being alive; one who grants other things knowledge is worthier of knowledge; one who makes other things powerful is worthier of power. It is also known that the masterful design therein denotes the knowledge of the Doer, and that the special design denotes the will of the Doer. The process of origination per se could not have occurred without the originator’s power. A person’s knowledge of his own specific, personal, and individual self would offer him the knowledge of these godly meanings and other things, as Allah  states, “…as there are within yourselves. Can you not see?”131’132

It should be noted that most Qur’anic passages that reveal the temporal nature of events were brought to demonstrate a wider point, not to merely prove the existence of the Creator, like the two verses Ibn Taymiyyah concluded his previous statement with. The context in these verses show that they were revealed to offer reasoning for the perfect power of Allah , and that He is able to bring about the Resurrection. In other words, one who created things out of nothing is a fortiori able to refashion them. This amount, as mentioned before, implicitly yet self-evidently suggests that the Omnipotent exists, and that His existence is suggested by the mere emergence of the creation out of nothing. The most famous verse that carries this rational argument is Allah’s statement: ‘Or were they created by nothing, or are they their own creators?’133

For the issue we are dealing with here, this awe-inspiring verse is the most enduring proof in the Qur’an. The verse starts off by setting out the great theological reality by focusing the discussion to what are the possibilities, after which it proceeds to demonstrate why all the options are impossible save for the only true option: Man has a Creator Who created him. The verse poses a question to rational people: ‘Were they brought into existence without anyone causing it? Or did they bring themselves into existence? It is neither, for it is Allah Who created them and gave them life, having previously been nothing worth mentioning.’134

Detailing this argument, Ibn al-Qayyim says, Contemplate the phrasal repetition of the creation term, and the restriction that comprises of establishing evidence in the simplest and most eloquent manner. Allah  is essentially saying, “How could have these creations – having not been in existence – been created without a Creator? This would be considered impossible by anyone with understanding and rationality, that there can be something made without a maker, or something created without a creator.” If a person passes by a wasteland without any building, then he passed by it again and saw solid buildings and castles, he would have no doubt that these had a maker. Then Allah said, “Or were they created by nothing, or are they their own creators?”135 This, likewise, shows that it is impossible that a servant invents and creates himself. How can someone be able to create himself out of non-existence? He cannot even increase his own life, not even by an hour, even though he has all the facilities of life. He cannot even extend his finger, fingernail, or even one strand of his hair. Given that both options are false, the only option that remains is that they have a Creator Who created them, and a Fashioner Who fashioned them. He is the True Divine Who is worthy of their worship and thanks. How can they thank a god other than Him when He is the one and only being that created them? If it is said, “What is the place of Allah’s statement ‘Or did they create the heavens and the Earth? In fact, they have no firm belief in Allah’136 in this evidence?”, it would be said in response: “The best place. Through the first couple of segments, He explained that they have a Creator and Fashioner, and that they are created. With the third segment, He explained that they are unable to create, having been created themselves and brought into existence. They did not create themselves. They did not create the heavens or the Earth. It was the One, the Omnipotent, the One described as ‘There is neither any god nor lord besides Him’ Who created them. He created the heavens and the Earth. By creating the upper and lower dominions and everything therein, He alone is the one Who created both residence and resident.”’137

Jubayr ibn Muṭʿim  has a beautiful narration revealing the greatness of this Qur’anic verse. He said, ‘I heard the Prophet  read al-Ṭūrin the Maghrib prayer. When he reached this verse: “Or were they created by nothing, or are they their own creators?”138, my heart almost flew out.’139 The one contemplating the method of the Prophets in debating those who denied the lordship of Allah  and claimed it for themselves will note that the Prophets instructed them with this rational method to argue for the lordship of Allah , and subsequently His worthiness to be worshipped alone.

The most infamous person who denied the lordship of Allah  was Pharaoh. He said, ‘I am your lord, the most high!’140 As thus, part of the discussion Mūsā had with him was to use the effects of the power of Allah  as an evidence against him. Allah  says, ‘Pharaoh asked, “And what is ‘the Lord of all worlds’?”’141

Mūsā  offered a variety of answers and proofs. He reminded Pharaoh of the innate instinct, that Allah is far more recognisable than the need for some definition. He explained that all of Allah’s creation is existentially dependent on Him – all the heavens, the Earth, and everything in between is in need of Allah  for creation, sustenance, and assistance. His statement ‘Lord of the east and west’142 is additional information and emphasis that all events are dependent on Him, . Everything above and beneath you, everything in the east and the west, and everything in between that is in front of you and behind you is dependent on Him .

Ibn Taymiyyah analysed the debate between Mūsā and Pharaoh:

Pharaoh shrouded his denial and rejection in the form of a rhetorical question. He was not asking about the attributes of a Lord he had already acknowledged, as he was in denial of Him and rejected Him. This is why towards the end of the discussion, he said, “If you take any other god besides me, I will certainly have you imprisoned.”143

He also said, “…although I am sure he (Mūsā) is a liar.”144 His question was actually to convey his denial and rejection. He was basically saying, “The world does not have a lord who sent you. Who is this?” – as a point of denial. Mūsā explained that He is known to both him and those who were present in court, and that His signs were apparent, clear, and undeniable. He stated that they were denying with their tongues what they instinctively knew to be true. As related in another place in the Qur’an, Mūsā said to Pharaoh, “You know well that none has sent these signs down except the Lord of the heavens and the Earth as insights.”145 Allah  said, “And, although their hearts were convinced the signs were true, they still denied them wrongfully and arrogantly. See then what was the end of the corruptors!”146 Pharaoh did not say “Who (Arabic = man) is the Lord of the Worlds?”, as man is a question about a specific being. It is used in questions in which an exact and specific entity is being questioned, with its generic identity already known. It is like when a conduit is asked when he comes from someone, “Who (man) sent you?” ‘As for mā, that would be used in a question for description. Pharaoh was saying, “What is this? And what is this that you have called ‘Lord of the Worlds’?” He said this out of denial and rejection of Him. When he asked this in a dismissive fashion, Mūsā answered that He is far more recognisable than to ever be denied, and that He is far more obvious than to be ever doubted. He said, “He is the Lord of the heavens and the Earth and everything in between, if only you had sure faith.”147 He did not say, “…if only you had sure faith in such and such” – he kept it open ended. In essence, if you had certainty for anything, the first on the list of certainties should be conviction in this Lord – just as when the Messengers said to their people, “Is there any doubt about Allah?”148 If you say, “We have no certainty in anything. In fact, all knowledge has been seized from us”, then this is a general claim to sophism. Its claimant is obviously lying, as knowledge is part and parcel of every human. Every rational human must have some knowledge. This is why it has been stated in the definition of rationality that it is the instinctive knowledge, which no rational person is free of. So when Pharaoh said, “Your messenger, who has been sent to you, must be insane”149, it was a lie on the Messenger. They had left their praiseworthy traditions, and thus they ascribed the Messengers to insanity. They also showcased a denial or doubting in the Creator. This was the state of their common people and their religion. This was a good religion in their eyes, and the god they obeyed was Pharaoh: “Your messenger, who has been sent to you, must be insane.”150 So Mūsā explained to him that he is the one who has been left bereft of beneficial logic, and he is worthier of this ascription. He said, “He is the Lord of the east and west, and everything in between, if only you had any sense.”151 Logic requires instinctive and certain knowledge, the greatest of which in the fiṭrah is acknowledging the Creator. He then went on to explain that affirming Him is a logical implication. However, beneficial knowledge is praiseworthy when a person endowed with it acts upon it. If he does not act upon it, it would be said that he is bereft of logic. It would also be said that the one who does not follow what he is seemingly certain of actually does not possess certainty. Certainty can also mean knowledge that is settled in the heart; it can also mean acting upon this knowledge. Therefore, the term believer (one who is certain) would only be said for those in whose hearts both knowledge and action have settled. The people of Pharaoh did not follow when they knew. They therefore possessed neither logic nor certainty. The statement of Mūsā denotes both points: If you have certainty, you will know Him, and if you have logic, you will know Him. If you claim that you have no certainty or logic, then likewise your people. This therefore would be an acknowledgement on your part that your humanity has been taken away from you. Whoever is like this is unfit to claim divinity. Even though this is false on your part, you still believe Him. It is as Allah  said, “And, although their hearts were convinced the signs were true, they still denied them wrongfully and arrogantly.”152 You have logic by which you can recognise Him. However, your predilections prevent you from following what logic dictates. You want to boast in the land and be corrupt. Therefore, from this angle, you have no logic.’153

There was a confrontation between Ibrāhīm  and Namrūd (Nimrod) similar to that of Mūsā  and Pharaoh. Allah  says, ‘Are you O Prophet not aware of the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord because Allah had granted him kingship? Remember when Abraham said, “My Lord is the One Who has power to give life and cause death.” He argued, “I too have the power to give life and cause death.” Abraham challenged him, “Allah causes the Sun to rise from the east. So make it rise from the west.” And so the disbeliever was dumbstruck. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.’154 Explaining the segments of this debate and the state of Namrūd, Ibn Kathīr  said, That is because he denied that there is a god other than him, like Pharaoh said to his people, “O chiefs! I know of no other god for you but myself.”155 It was only his arrogance and prolonged rule that led him to his tyranny, gross disbelief, and severe obstinance. This is why Allah said, “…because Allah had granted him kingship?”156 It is like he demanded evidence from Ibrāhīm for the existence of the Lord he was calling to. Ibrāhīm said, “My Lord is the One Who has power to give life and cause death.”157 By this he meant: “The evidence for His existence is the appearance of these observable things after they were previously in non-existence, and their non existence after they had been in existence. This is automatically proof for the existence of the Doer and the Chooser, as they would not have occurred by themselves. Therefore, it is necessary for there to be an entity who brought them into existence. That would be the Lord to Whose worship that I call, for He is alone and without partner.” At that moment, the interlocutor – Namrūd – said, “I too have the power to give life and cause death.”158 Qatādah, Muhammad ibn Isḥāq, Suddī, and others said, “Look – I now have two people brought to me. They are on death row. I hereby order that one is killed and the other pardoned. This is the meaning of giving life and death.” It appears – and Allah knows best – that this is not what Namrūd meant, as this is not a direct answer to Ibrāhīm, nor is it related to his question, as it does not preclude the existence of a Maker. Rather, what he meant was to proclaim this station for himself out of stubbornness and arrogance. He pretended that by doing this, he was the one who issued life and death. Pharaoh followed him on this: “O chiefs! I know of no other god for you but myself.”159 This is why when he claimed this puffery, Ibrāhīm told him, “Allah causes the Sun to rise from the east. So make it rise from the west.”160 By this he meant: “If you are claiming that you give life and death, then the One Who does this is the One Who enforces His will in existence by creating His chosen entities, and by subjugating the planets and their movements. This Sun appears every day from the east – if you are a god who gives life and death as you claim, then bring it from the west.” When he knew he was unable and could not offer a response, he realised that he could no longer boast in this situation, and was left dumbstruck. Allah  said, “And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.”161 This means He does not inspire them to any evidence or proof. Rather, their evidence is futile in the eyes of their Lord. Upon them is wrath, and they will suffer a severe punishment. Revelation according to this meaning is far better than what most logicians mention, namely that Ibrāhīm’s switch from the first issue to the second was a switch from one evidence to another that was more clear-cut. Some logicians refer to this switch with an unsavoury expression. However, it is not like they have stated. Rather, the first issue is like the proposition to the second and highlights the falsehood of what Namrūd claimed in both the first and second issues. And to Allah belongs all praise and thanks.162

• First proposition: Temporal events exist.

• Second proposition: Every temporal event has someone who caused it.

• Conclusion: Allah  is the cause of temporal events.

Evidence for these two propositions, and how they lead to the aforementioned conclusion, is required.

The proof of this proposition is the senses and observation, which is what Ghazālī, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Taymiyyah, and others pointed out in relation to perceptible temporal events. On the temporality of the universe (and everything within it), both its existence and non-existence can be envisaged, and thus its existence is not considered necessary – it is only contingent. Contingent entities are most certainly temporal, as they require the existence of a non-contingent being for them to come into existence. The temporality of the universe will be discussed in more detail in the next section, by the permission of Allah.

The senses are cognitive transmitters, not cognitive arbiters. A man’s recognition of the emerging things he witnesses and senses around him is necessary. Ibn Taymiyyah  said, The method of bringing evidence by using that whose temporality is observable is in the Qur’an, and the ancient scholars and Imams have agreed to it, though in conjunction with instinct and the senses. With this, there is no need to offer evidence for the temporality of specific Doubting the temporality of those things whose emergence can be observed leads to sophism, which shuts down the possibility of any knowledge. It results in the equalisation of a sane person and a madman.

The proof for this is rational instinctiveness, as represented in the principle of causality. It is a self-evident and instinctive issue whose opposite scenario cannot be envisaged: It is not possible to imagine the existence of a temporal matter without knowing there was a cause that brought about its emergence. Ibn Taymiyyah said, ‘Knowing that an originated entity must have an originator is innate and instinctive knowledge.’164 Therefore, this is an issue that does not require a process of evidence-based reasoning. Rather, it would be accepted as fact, for it is basic knowledge, upon which theoretical knowledge is based. Rational necessities are to be used as evidence for other things. They are not there to be proven. They acquire their decisiveness from their innateness. Without affirming their instinctiveness, the basis of knowledge would become an infinite series, causing the collapse of the possibility of gaining any knowledge. Therefore, there must be some basic facts – or cognitive concepts – upon which the process of evidence-based reasoning is founded. One of these instinctive cognitive concepts is the principle of causality.

It is interesting that the process of evidence-based reasoning requires that rational necessity is acknowledged. The connection between evidence and what it points to is governed by this rule, for evidence is the cause of gaining knowledge about what it points to. The opponent’s mere attempt to disprove the principle of causality is a tacit acknowledgement on his part in favour of it. On the deep influence of this principle on the make-up of human rationality, Ibn Taymiyyah said, It is known by fiṭrah – upon which Allah predisposed his slaves with clear logic – that an emerging event does not occur without something originating it, and that the emergence of a temporal event without an originator can be automatically ruled out as false. This is entrenched in all children of Adam, even small children. If a child were struck and said, “Who hit me?”, and he was told, “Nobody”, his mind would not accept that the strike occurred without someone perpetrating it. This is why if someone posited that writing, construction, implantation, or similar can occur without someone doing these, rational people would consider him to be either a madman or a sophist, just like someone who denied self-evidence and instinctive knowledge.’165

For further emphasis and clarity on this instinctive knowledge, it can be said that, prior to existence, anything that is now existent was: a) impossible, b) possible, or c) necessary. The first option is unviable as it would have never come into existence in the first place. The third option is also unviable as it would never have been non-existent. Therefore, the only credible option left is that it is possible – that it can accept both existence and non-existence. And because it left nothingness to come into existence, there must be an entity exercising preponderance in favour of its existence over its non-existence, without which it would have remained in the realm of nothingness. The entity exercising preponderance in favour of its existence is also known as the cause or reason for its existence. Based on this, we say that there is nothing that comes into existence without a cause that preferred its existence over its non-existence. It is impossible that this cause is non-existent, as nothingness does not exist as an entity. It cannot be envisaged that nothingness caused it to be – anything that does not possess something cannot offer that same thing to something else. Likewise, it would be impossible for something to be its own cause. If something was non-existent, it cannot be a cause for something else to come into existence, let alone itself. If we assumed that something chose itself to be in existence, that would be evidence for it being a necessary entity, whose nothingness would be impossible. It is a contradiction and a self-evident impossibility that something that is possible is also necessary. It only remains to say that the cause of an entity’s emergence is something in existence that is external to that. That is the point.

Perhaps one may find some ambiguity in this rational self-evident fact. This is how instinctive knowledge is: When an attempt is made to uncover and clarify it, it just becomes complicated. As Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī said, ‘Forcing evidence for clear-cut matters increases their ambiguity and offers no clarity to them.’166

This is because evidence should be clearer than what it points to, so it is unfeasible for theoretical knowledge to be evidence to reveal what are self-evident truths.

The purpose with the aforementioned paragraphs is not to offer evidence for the principle of causality. Rather, what we have done is to highlight the reality of this principle and set out its application. The principle is rational and self-evident. It is not in need of any evidence. In fact, the process of evidence-based reasoning is based on innately understood principles like it. Ghazālī said, ‘This principle must be acknowledged. It is basic and instinctive to the mind. For the one who deliberates about this, perhaps he is doing so because he did not understand the terms “temporal” or “cause”; once he does, his mind would automatically accept that every temporal entity has a cause.’167 He went on to explain the two terms.

Based on the two propositions, it follows that there must be a pre-eternal, non contingent existence that is the cause of all temporal events and possibilities. The evidence for this cause being non-contingent is this: Given we know every specific event has a cause, and the cause has a cause, we must stop the sequence of potentially infinite causes by assuming a primary cause that is not dependent on a cause. This is because causal infinity is impossible according to the philosophers, as it would mean no individual case of temporality would have ever taken place.

Irrespective of the complex net of temporal events, causes, and their interrelationship, what one must know is that those causes must go back to the original cause. Without this, the series of causes would not have existed to start with.

Here is an example. Imagine there is a man who was standing by the train tracks as the train carriages passed by him. This happened to be his first ever experience of seeing a train. He asked himself: ‘Why is this carriage moving forward?’ After a while, he realised that it was being pulled by the carriage in front of it, and likewise that one by the one in front of it, until the end. Now, if someone said, ‘What prevents the notion that every carriage has a carriage in front of it, pulling the one behind it, and that process goes on for infinity?’, the answer to that would simply be that no carriage would then move. For example, carriage E cannot move until carriage F moves; carriage F cannot move until carriage G moves; and so on. If we went on, no carriage would ever move. Therefore, the mind would instinctively know that there is a ‘first carriage’, which is causing all the carriages to move. The atheist statement ‘The world is a large circle of life’ does not solve their problem here. They attempt to create a solution for this quagmire by making the universe an autarkic system. This means that the net of complex interrelationships between causes and events can answer the question of temporality without the need for an original cause. They add that every cause has a cause to infinity but it is like a closed chain, the end of which meets up to form a circle. This does not answer anything. Even if you linked the first carriage to the last carriage and formed a loop, and someone suggested that the first carriage was being pulled by the last carriage, then this still does not explain the temporality of the movement itself – this movement must have had a first cause, upon which the movement of all the carriages rests. Also, if the first scenario leads to infinite causes – which is impossible – then this solution leads to infinite regress, which too is impossible. Looking at the previous example would reveal the reason for its impossibility.

This proof is known as the argument from temporality, the kalam argument, the argument from the universe, or the cosmological argument. The propositions and conclusion of this proof are similar to those of the first level that we just dealt with:

• First proposition: Anything with a beginning must have a cause.

• Second proposition: The universe has a beginning.

• Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

The cause that preferred its existence over its non-existence is Allah .

In actuality, this method of reasoning is not new in the philosophy or kalam space. In fact, it is the most famous entry point of kalam into the issue of the existence of Allah . This is why even some of those who have used this reasoning within the contemporary Western arena – such as the famous Christian debater William Lane Craig – have called it the ‘kalam cosmological argument’; he also has a book with the same name. In the beginning of this book, he makes the following important acknowledgement: ‘Probably no chapter in the history of the cosmological argument is as significant – or as universally ignored – as that of the Arabic theologians and philosophers. Although we find in them the origin and development of two of the most important versions of the cosmological argument, namely the argument from temporal regress and the argument from contingency, the contribution of these Islamic thinkers is virtually ignored in western anthologies and books on the subject.’168

What must be considered when discussing this class of indication – which is the argument from the creation to prove the Creator – is that it is in reality affirming the temporality of a specific creation, or a number of creations, with tools of reasoning that lead to the same conclusion offered by eyewitness observation. This is because the religious conceptualisation in general – and the Islamic one in particular – believes in the existence of other worlds beyond the specific world which we call our universe. Ibn Taymiyyah’s famous polemic with the philosophers and the kalam scholars on the issue of the temporality versus the pre-eternality of the world, and his position on infinite regress of events and the pre-eternality of their genus, complicates the question. In his view, there is no beginning or end to creation as a whole, though every individual created being would have a beginning. Therefore, in light of this viewpoint that Ibn Taymiyyah reasoned, there is not much benefit to be had in attempting to prove there was a beginning to creation as a whole, since this view claims there was no beginning. So long as Allah  is ascribed with complete power and will, and that He created whenever He likes, then every specific creation a mind can envisage to have a beginning can possibly have been preceded with another, precisely for the reason that Allah’s power and will are perfect. When a person judges that the chain must be broken, that there must be a first creation, and that it is impossible for it to be preceded by another creation, the problem of impossibility being ascribed to the Lord  would come into play, and the impossibility of the deed would be applicable to Allah . This is something He can never be described with, as He is pre-eternally and forever into the future described with creation, power, and will. The fact is this issue confuses the mind and is consigned to the deep end of philosophical debate. This is obviously not the place for that discussion. I only wanted to point this out so we can situate this class of argument in its rightful place. It would therefore not be suitable to promote it with zeal. One should only engage with this argument to the extent of its beneficial impact: that it brings about a quick acknowledgement from all sides that the universe we are in is temporal, that anything in the purview of our senses is temporal, and that anything in this universe that is absent from us is also temporal. The acknowledgement of most atheists today on the temporality of the universe, and that everything therein is temporal, is one that was typically not found in pre-modern atheism. It was only until recently that they used to believe the universe is pre-eternal; in fact, they had this down as an accepted fact, and stated that the burden of proof for its temporality was on those who claim it is temporal. Bertrand Russell, the famous British mathematician and philosopher, claimed that ‘the universe is just there, and that is all’ – it required no explanation according to him; it was pre-eternal without anything that caused it to begin.169

Nowadays, the scope of debate in this issue is very limited. The prevailing view across modern science is that the world is temporal, and that the universe we are living in has a fixed age. The physicist Stephen Hawking said, ‘Instead, almost 169 In the same passage, he mentioned another possibility: Even assuming the universe has a beginning, it could have appeared without cause. This problem shall be discussed later. See his famous book Why I Am Not a Christian, which is published as part of The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, p. 568. Also refer to his debate with Frederick Copleston, broadcast by the BBC Radio in 1948, a transcript of which can be found here: http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_radio.htm. It concluded with Russell becoming convinced that the entire topic of the cause of the world’s temporality – if it is indeed temporal – is fruitless.

everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.’170 The agnostic cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin said, ‘Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.’171

Thus, the universe’s ‘pre-eternality versus temporality’ is no longer a point of contention in science. There is general agreement on the latter. However, the contention remains over the cause of its emergence. This sort of scientific acknowledgement substantially reduces the philosophical debate surrounding the issue of pre-eternality versus temporality. This has been quite a heated debate within historical philosophy and kalam discussions. In fact, it is the most hotly contested area in the spaces of philosophy and kalam. Suffice it to say that Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī dedicated around two thirds of his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers to deal with the matter. He offered kalam-based proofs against those philosophers who opined that the universe is pre-eternal. The same issue also took a fair bit of space in Ibn Rushd’s book The Incoherence of the Incoherence, which is a refutation of Ghazālī. In addition, Ibn Taymiyyah has lengthy discussions on this in various works, including Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, Dar’ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa al-Naql, Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah, al-Ṣafadiyyah, Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Aṣbahāniyyah, Mas’alah Ḥudūth al-ʿĀlam, Sharḥ Ḥadīth ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn, et alia. No voluminous book on kalam exists that did not touch upon this.

My aim is not to encompass all the dimensions of this philosophical-kalam debate, as that would require a dedicated piece of research. It deals with the kalam proofs that demonstrate the temporality of the universe, which are many. Most are not free of problems; in fact, to ensure their consistency, the kalam scholars went on to adopt their erroneous implications. Forcing that discussion here, with all the problems and doubts it brings, at a time when the opposite side now acknowledges its temporality, is futile and should be avoided. Obviously, the point is not to confer any legitimacy to the pre-eternality view, or that this is a valid contention. There is no doubt that the world is temporal. Rather, the difference is in the tools by which this temporality is to be established. There is also no difference that this proof leads to the required outcome: the existence of the Creator.

We come back to the details of this proof. As mentioned before, the proof of the proposition ‘Anything with a beginning must have a cause’ is rational instinctiveness. We can clarify further with a detailed citation from Ibn Ḥazm , who revealed why this is instinctive and self-evident:

With all we have mentioned, it is established that the world has a beginning. Given that it does, it follows that it must be because of one of three reasons – there is no other:

1. Its own essence caused its emergence.

2. It emerged by itself without itself or anything else causing it.

3. It emerged as a result of something else.

If it caused its own emergence, it must be because of one of four reasons – there is no other:

1. Its own essence caused its own emergence when it was non existent but its essence was existent.

2. Its own essence caused its own emergence when it was existent but its essence was non-existent.

3. Its own essence caused its own emergence when both of them were existent.

4. Its own essence caused its own emergence when both of them were non-existent.

All of these four options are impossible, as an entity and its essence are the same thing. All four imply that an entity is different from its essence; observation and the senses attest to its impossibility and falsehood. Therefore, this option is eliminated. It is also impossible that anything that comes out from non-existence into existence does so without either itself or something else causing it. This is because no state is worthier of preponderance than another when it comes to its emergence, as there is no state here to begin with. Therefore, there is no pathway for it to emerge through this option, yet we can see that its emergence is observable and possible. The state of emergence is different from the state of non-emergence. The state of emergence is the reason why it exists… Whatever applies to the option that the world caused its own emergence, or that something else caused its emergence, or that it emerged without cause, would be applicable to this state. If the statement goes on (i.e., the cause had a cause, and that cause had a cause…), it will mean infinity. Infinite regress in causes for the world’s beginning is false and impossible, based on what we previously mentioned. Therefore, it has been falsified that the world either caused its own emergence or that it emerged without anything else causing it. As thus, since no other option remains, the third option is automatically established and must be deemed to be correct: The world was caused to emerge from non-existence to existence by something else. And with Allah lies all success.172

As for the ‘The universe has a beginning’ proposition, it can be proved with a set of contemporary scientific concepts. These include the following.

During the early stages of the history of cosmology, there was an agreement of sorts on two fundamental notions related to the nature of the universe:

1. The universe is homogeneous with the same characteristics – it is the same across all its constituent parts.

2. The universe is in a fixed and constant pattern.

When Einstein came and introduced relativity, these two assumptions appeared to contradict the first iteration of the law of relativity that he theorised. To deal with this problem, he proposed a constant coefficient he called the cosmological constant in order to counterbalance the effect of gravity. That way, there would be balance in the new theory of the universe that he had proposed, which was that the universe is static. This was the generally accepted view on the universe in most scientific circles back then: The universe was characterised as being static and constant.

Thereafter, the Belgian Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître and the Russian scientist Alexander Friedmann came onto the scene. They offered a new theory for the universe: The universe is expanding, and it began from an extremely dense and compact state. Key support for the expansionist theory of the universe came from Edwin Hubble. In 1929, he made an important discovery: The galaxies around us are moving farther out from us with a speed that corresponds to the distance between them and us; their speed increases as the distance widens. Expansionism was detected through the light spectrum of those galaxies – they appear to be reddish, which suggests that they are moving farther away, as opposed to when something is moving closer, in which case it appears to the observer to have a blue haze. In 1946, George Gamow theorised that, alongside the expansion of the universe and the falling of temperature, photons successfully detached from matter. This was represented in the form of a light ray that Gamow assumed existed, and that it continued to beam across the universe. This was accidentally discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. This phenomenon was later named as cosmic microwave background radiation, representing one of the strongest proofs for the Big Bang theory. This radiation uncovered the existence of abnormally high levels of temperature in between the galaxies, and that space does not have a temperature of absolute zero. Rather, space temperature sits at around 3 Kelvin – this radiation is the heat remnant of the Big Bang. As a result of this discovery, the two researchers won the Nobel Peace Prize in Physics in 1978. This point marked a shift in the science community: Rejection of the Big Bang turned to general acceptance. It is interesting to note that this discovery on their part was an accident. They said, ‘Either we’ve seen the birth of the universe, or (as one astrophysical folk tale would have it) we’ve seen a pile of 81

pigeons!’173 In summary, this theory states that the universe that we are in started from a single, hot, and infinitely dense mass of matter. It then started to expand for around 13.8 billion years. This expansion was not because of galaxies in the universe moving apart from one another like some might initially understand; rather, what is expanding is space itself, in which these celestial bodies live.

The example of this is like writing dots on a balloon, and then blowing it up. You would note that the dots move away from one another as the balloon expands, without the dots ever moving from their place – the only thing that expanded was the balloon. What is important is that this theory states that matter and energy – in fact, time and space174 – were all made at the very moment of the Big Bang.

Alongside the many proofs supporting this theory, it has solved many of the universe’s mysteries that previously fraught scientists, like the abundance of helium in the universe. That problem arose because stars – which are the factories of producing the elements – are unable to produce such huge quantities of helium. This theory offered an explanation: The high density and temperature in the first three minutes of the universe was ideal to create helium from hydrogen, and as a result, a large amount of helium that now exists in the universe was made back then. Observation devices reveal that the stars and the galaxies comprise of 75% hydrogen and 24% helium, which agrees to a large extent with the Big Bang theory.

It also solved the Olbers’ paradox. Olbers was a German astronomer. The paradox relates to a daily phenomenon, or in more precise terms, a nightly phenomenon. We all can see it and may not even give it a second thought. It is the darkness of the night. Why is the night like this? A person may answer that it is because sunlight has disappeared. However, this answer is not satisfactory when we take into consideration that the Sun is not the only star in this universe. So that the paradox becomes clearer, let us assume that the universe is expanding indefinitely, and that it is pre-eternal as well. It would then have an infinite number of stars, such that if we were to draw a straight line from Earth in any direction, it would eventually hit a star. Also, the universe is pre-eternal, and so the light of those stars would also reach us. Given that this is the case, we should be able to perceive that the sky above us is illuminated with perpetual light during both night and day. However, that is not the case. Why?

The Big Bang theory provides us with an explanation for this. It states that even though it is expanding, the universe is limited in terms of space and time. Because of this, the stars are also limited. If we were to walk from Earth in a straight line until we reach the edge of the universe, it is possible that we might 173 Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science, p. 159.

174 This issue requires research that would explain the nature of time and space, and offer a distinction between how these terms are understood in circles of philosophy as opposed to the circles of physics.

not come into contact with any star before reaching the edge. Moreover, in light of this theory, the universe has an age; as thus, the light coming from the stars require some considerable time before it reaches us. The stars we can see are an extremely tiny amount compared to the stars that exist in the universe. What prevents us from seeing the rest of the stars is that their light is still traversing the universe and has not yet reached us. This is why night is dark. The ability to explain various phenomena is where the strength of the Big Bang theory lies. This also explains why this theory is so widely accepted. The point is not to detail this theory here, but rather to construct the notion that the universe indeed had a beginning. It is like how Terrance McKenna put it: ‘Modern science is based on the principle: “Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.” The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.’175

In the mid-90s, scientists attempted to uncover a rule that explains all irreversible processes in the universe. As a result of those efforts, the second law of thermodynamics was discovered. The first step to realising this was to note that heat always transfers from a more heated body to a less heated one, and heat keeps on transferring until all connected bodies reach thermal equilibrium. The fact of the matter is that the thermal transfer is just one example of many, which can be described as the equilibrium concept or the balance of nature. The same can be seen vis-à-vis the spread of gases to achieve equilibrium, electricity, and other cases as well. Had these phenomena not occurred in nature, life would have been impossible. By this phenomenon, the air – for example – does not separate out so that oxygen gathers only on one side of the room and nitrogen on the other side. One significant development in the shaping of this law is its connection with the concept of entropy. It is a technical term used to denote the amount of chaos. Anytime there is an increase in the scale of disorder within a system, the sum of the entropies rises therein; likewise, when there is a disorder scale decrease, the sum of the entropies decreases. This is why the law of thermodynamics has within it a provision that states that systems are inclined to switch from low entropy to higher entropy. In other words, they switch from order to disorder. What concerns us here is the connection of this law to the universe. The universe is a closed system. This is why the second law of thermodynamics is applicable to it. As a closed system, the universe strives to achieve equilibrium in multiple fields. Heat spreads until it reaches equilibrium, and likewise the same occurs in the distribution of energy, entropy, and others as well.

As such, had the universe been pre-eternal, it would have already reached equilibrium, as it would have had an infinite amount of time to have reached this state. And had it reached this state, heat would have been equally distributed across all bodies inside the universe, the systems as we see them today would not have existed, disorder would have been equal across all its corners, the fountain of energy would have been depleted, and all movement would have stopped. In fact, every natural and chemical process would have stopped. Yet, the state of the universe is the exact opposite. The universe still has a system to it. It has not yet reached the stage of heat death. In light of what has preceded, the universe reveals to us an important fact: It is not pre-eternal, but rather has a fixed age when we look back into its history, and it had a start to it.

Based on these two propositions, we can say there is an external cause for the universe that is above its matter and beyond its nature. This external cause brought the world out into existence. That cause is Allah  Himself.

One who denies the existence of Allah  would not accept the instinctive indication of this argument, and would instead cast a set of doubts on it. These doubts either go back to the argument’s first proposition, second proposition, or conclusion. Here, I shall mention the most important doubts and objections that have been listed.

The main way of casting doubt to this proposition is through the claim that something can come into existence without any cause, and that it is possible for a contingent entity to be chosen for existence – versus non-existence – without a chooser. Based on this, it is possible that the universe just came into existence without cause; therefore, it is not in need for a cause that preferred it to exist. As thus, this claim would make the need for an independent creator irrelevant. The most famous sceptic argument strives to negate man’s instinctive element. That instinct denotes the principle of causality. It has been previously highlighted that this principle is an instinctive and self-evident rational concept that does not require external veracity. The most famous sceptic of this principle is the English philosopher David Hume. He is a pioneer of the empiricist school, that declares that only the senses can be the source for human knowledge. He states.

To be fully acquainted, therefore, with the idea of power or necessary connexion, let us examine its impression; and in order to find the impression with greater certainty, let us search for it in all the sources, from which it may possibly be derived. When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that appears to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects: consequently, there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, anything which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion.176

He also said, The generality of mankind never find any difficulty in accounting for the more common and familiar operations of nature – such as the descent of heavy bodies, the growth of plants, the generation of animals, or the nourishment of bodies by food: but suppose that, in all these cases, they perceive the very force or energy of the cause, by which it is connected with its effect, and is for ever infallible in its operation. They acquire, by long habit, such a turn of mind, that, upon the appearance of the cause, they immediately expect with assurance its usual attendant, and hardly conceive it possible that any other event could result from it.’177

Hume constructed a philosophical argument that highlights his vision on the principle of causality and the nature of the relationship between cause and effect. He wrote this in his book A Treatise of Human Nature. The summary of his scepticism thesis is as follows:

We find that all distinct ideas are mutually separate. This includes the notions of cause and effect. They are both different concepts, and therefore separate. This is why it is easy for us to envisage in our minds an effect without envisaging its cause. Therefore, it is possible that we think of something coming into existence without simultaneously thinking of its cause, because the distinction between cause and effect is possible in our thoughts and minds. Given that this is the case, it should also be possible that there is no link between cause and effect in the real world, as there is no inherent impossibility or contradiction that prevents this. Therefore, possibility dictates that effect can exist without cause, and thus the claim that every effect must have a cause collapses, and the principle of causation become unacceptable.178

This, in short, is the scepticism thesis vis-à-vis universal causality as proposed by David Hume. The central problem with his thesis is obvious: He analogised the thoughts of a human mind to real-world possibilities. What may occur in the mind is way broader than what can actually occur in the real world. Therefore, not everything the mind can conjure up must have external presence. His conflation between conceptual possibility and external possibility is what led many philosophers to fall into numerous philosophical problems, such as Plato’s theory of Forms, which gave rise to monism in various groups. There are other problems as well.

One humorous example to expose Hume’s error was used by the philosopher Bruce Reichenbach. Dispelling the notion that something in the mind can also exist in the real world, he said to imagine an evenly thick plate. It is concave on one side and therefore convex on the other. Though both are from its distinct features, they cannot exist apart from each other. In fact, both are the result of the other, as the concaveness of one side results in the convexness of the other and vice versa.179 It therefore seems that the negation of the link between conceptual reality and actual reality on Hume’s part is incoherent. Hume became entrapped into this quagmire thanks to his ascription to the empiricist school of thought. This school restricts the acquisition of knowledge to the senses. There is no doubt that such a gross restriction to the sources of knowledge cannot ever assist in the establishment of a philosophical rule upon which the notion of ‘universal causality = every event has a cause behind it’ or ‘relative causality = a specific event has a specific cause’ can be based. Proving this type of data requires a priori knowledge so that it can be deemed to be consistently applicable. Without this, the most that can be said in this context is that knowledge can be gained though sensory induction. This is what Hume stated, as he rejected a priori knowledge.180

Yet there is a problem: The claim that full induction is achievable cannot be made; therefore, it is possible to be sceptical of the absolute applicability of causality. As our notion of the principle ‘Every temporal event must have a cause’ is based on observation alone, it would be possible for a person to claim the existence of a ‘causeless temporal event’, because the full induction that would have otherwise precluded this possibility has not been achieved. This is why there is no pathway to achieve this knowledge and establish its universal application without a priori knowledge imprinted onto the soul, well before sensory perception was ever possible. The principle of causality as an innate and instinctive concept has been repeatedly emphasised. Of course, the problem grows out of proportion when Hume rejects the process of induction altogether. He does so on this basis: Whatever we witness is simply one event following another, without us ever knowing the strength of causality the first event (cause) has in the second (effect). Based on this, we cannot say that the former is the cause for the latter, as he would claim. I am not overly zealous of delving into the philosophical dimensions of this contentious issue, or assessing Hume’s scepticism on universal causality for that matter. I argue that we have an innate and instinctive predisposition, and doubting it leads to sophism, which cannot be combated with just rational tools, proofs, or reasoning. In fact, the very process of reasoning and offering evidence is governed by the principle of causality. The price of denying this is very high indeed, as it leads to the negation of the possibility of gaining any knowledge. Ibn Rushd says, ‘To deny the existence of efficient causes which are observed in sensory things is sophistry; he who defends this doctrine either denies with his tongue what is present in his mind, or is carried away by being overcome by a sophist doubt concerning this question.’181

He goes on to say, Now intelligence is nothing but the perception of things with their causes, and in this it distinguishes itself from all the other faculties of apprehension. He who denies causes must deny the intellect. Logic implies the existence of causes and effects, and knowledge of these effects can only be rendered perfect through knowledge of their causes. Denial of cause implies the denial of knowledge; denial of knowledge implies that nothing in this world can be really known, and that what is supposed to be known is nothing but opinion, that neither proof nor definition exist, and that the essential attributes which compose definitions are void. The man who denies the necessity of any item of knowledge must admit that even this – his own affirmation – is not necessary knowledge.182

In fact, we can say that the price of this denial is even more steep and dangerous. If one can start having doubts on causality – which is innate and instinctive – one can then start being sceptical of other rational and instinctive concepts, such as the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, the law of excluded middle, et alia. If the human mind instinctively believes in these, yet they too are subject to scepticism, what guarantee can there be that other innate concepts would be safe from being challenged and doubted? If we start to doubt other rational concepts, the door to gaining any knowledge would be indefinitely shut upon us, for theoretical knowledge can only be acquired by referring it back to knowledge that is predicated on the innate and instinctive concepts. Without these, we would not be able to acquire any knowledge. What is strange is that most New Atheists follow through with these implications, though without ever really tasking themselves of taking ownership of the impact they have. In their studies and works, they are preoccupied with searching for the laws and patterns of this universe, even though they explicitly reject the rational concepts, and even the law of causality. It is a gross contradiction between theoretical conceptualisation and the real world. This contradiction is produced because it is impossible to maintain a state of rejection while exercising this sort of denial in real life – whether at a personal level, in relation to a person’s relationship with others or the universe, because one is keen to study, or other reasons. Denying the principle of causality is just a moot point dragged into these sorts of discussions without it ever having any actual credible influence on man’s daily actions, ideas, or thoughts beyond this limited polemical space. In fact, the scepticism of Hume here is itself a place of philosophical contention. Some attribute that position to him and claim he denied the principle of causality; others are doubtful as to whether this was ever his view – they see a man who wanted to link the events of the world to actual natural causes.

Regardless, after he had investigated the issue of interrelationships between things, Hume wrote a letter to John Stuart in 1754, in which he said, ‘But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause: I only maintain’d, that our Certainty of the Falshood (sic) of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration, but from another Source.’183

The most significant objection here is the attempt to offer alternative viewpoints that would replace the traditional theory of the Big Bang. The objection firstly entails – and maintains – the notion that the universe is pre-eternal, like the static model, or that it assigns an evolutionary angle to the Big Bang in the sense that it was the beginning relative to our universe, but not the absolute beginning. It would appear that the attempt to propose such alternative theories is ideologically driven by the rejection of the theoretical implications of the Big Bang. We have one physicist express deep resentment of this theory, as if it were a religiously driven conspiracy. He said, ‘The underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men in the seventeenth century.’184 The idea of the Big Bang made Einstein initially uncomfortable, as its implication was that the universe – as we see it today – has a beginning. He said, ‘This circumstance (i.e., of an expanding universe) irritates me.’ Robert Jastrow notes: Einstein never liked the idea of a big bang because it suggested a beginning and a creation, and a creation suggested a Creator.’ He quoted Eddington by saying, ‘As a scientist I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang.’ Jastrow adds: ‘Oh yes, the metaphor there was that we know now that the universe had a beginning, and that all things that exist in this universe – life, planets, stars – can be traced back to that beginning, and it’s a curiously theological result to come out of science. The image that I had in my mind as I wrote about this was a group of scientists and astronomers who are climbing up a range of mountain peaks and they come to the highest peak and the very top, and there they meet a band of theologians who have been sitting for centuries waiting for them.185

The irony here is that it was the famous astronomer, Fred Hoyle, who coined the term ‘Big Bang’ for this theory, which he mockingly said in one of his discussions on the BBC. As a result, the theory became known by this term.

What is interesting is that in 1993, the Sky & Telescope magazine had a competition for a more suitable name for the Big Bang. Readers from 41 countries poured in with their suggestions, reaching a total of 13,099 recommendations, including ‘Matter Morphosis’, ‘The Bottom Turtle’, ‘Super Seed’, ‘Hubble Bubble’, ‘Bertha D. Universe’, ‘Doink’, ‘Let There Be Stuff’, and ‘Hey Looky There at That!’ The judges were Carl Sagan, Hugh Downs, and Timothy Ferris. In the end, the winner was announced to be – surprise surprise – Fred Hoyle! It seems that the name he mockingly assigned was the most appropriate.

The point here is that Hoyle was extremely critical of this theory. He considered it to be pseudoscience. Alongside Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi, Hoyle proposed an alternative theory that admitted to the mutual distancing of the galaxies, but without ever acknowledging that the universe had an absolute beginning. His theory is called the steady state theory. He remained true to his position since he proposed it in 1948 right until his death in 2001. The Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg remarked on this theory by saying, ‘The steady state theory is philosophically the most attractive theory because it least resembles the account given in Genesis.’186

One who closely looks at Hoyle’s model would see that he does not really offer any evidence for his view, but it is rather explaining away the evidence of the Big Bang and offering an alternative explanation for the phenomena represented in that evidence. It is as if his theory did not come from reading the universe empirically, but rather simply as a contrarian theory. One only has to listen to him speaking of his deep-seated resentment of the Big Bang theory for its philosophical and religious undertones: ‘To many people this thought process seems highly satisfactory because a “something” outside physics can then be introduced at t = 0. By a semantic manoeuvre, the word “something” is then replaced by “god”, except that the first letter becomes a capital, God, in order to warn us that we must not carry the enquiry any further.’187

Indeed, his view did not gain acceptance across the wider scientific community, especially in light of the increasing number of discoveries, all of which support the Big Bang. The most important discovery has been the discovery of the cosmic microwave background, regarding which Stephen Hawking said, ‘But the final nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory came with the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965. This radiation is the same in all directions. It has the spectrum of radiation in thermal equilibrium at a temperature of 2 point 7 degrees above the Absolute Zero of temperature. There doesn’t seem any way to explain this radiation in the Steady State theory.’188

In addition, Hoyle’s theory has proven itself incapable of offering any credible scientific prediction or plausible explanations for the various phenomena that exist across the universe, such as the abundance of helium, which aligns itself perfectly with the Big Bang theory. Furthermore, the first iteration of Hoyle’s theory predicted that new galaxies would appear within the gaps between the known galaxies, and therefore, the new galaxies would be spread out across the universe. Yet, the Big Bang theory states that younger galaxies were formed at an earlier time in the history of the universe, and therefore, they have been in existence for a few billion years.

In the early 90s, Martin Ryle gathered evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. On the back of this, Barbara Gamow wrote a poem mocking Hoyle:

“Your years of toil”,.

Said Ryle to Hoyle,.

“Are wasted years, believe me.

The steady state.

Is out of date.

Unless my eyes deceive me,.

My telescope.

Has dashed your hope;.

Your tenants are refuted.

Let me be terse.

Our Universe.

Grows daily more diluted!”.

Said Hoyle, “You quote.

Lemaître, I note,.

And Gamow. Well forget them!.

That errant gang.

And their Big Bang –.

Why aid them and abet them?.

You see, my friend,.

It has no end.

And there was no beginning,.

As Bondi, Gold.

And I will hold.

Until our hair is thinning!”189.

The overwhelming majority of cosmologists believe in the Big Bang, that the universe that we are in had a point when it was born, and that the static universe theory has been completely abandoned. The above discussion is in relation to the model that seeks to dispel the notion that there was a beginning from the theory of everything (TOE). As for the model that seeks to maintain the pre-eternality of the universe while also acknowledging the Big Bang as the beginning of our universe (i.e., not the entirety of existence), they include: the oscillating universe model and the eternal inflation model.

The oscillating universe model is based on the idea that the universe expands for a period, then collapses and contracts, and then expands again. The process repeats itself, resembling a ‘crunch and bounce’. This view states that the universe at its core is pre-eternal without any definitive beginning, but it is in a constant state of volatility of expansion and contraction. This model has a number of problems. In addition, it carries the pervading yet unsubstantiated mentality of the pre-eternality of the universe. One can detect this in what John Gribbin said:

The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical – perhaps even theological – what was there before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great initial impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way round this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely.190

One objection to the oscillating universe theory is that the notion of contraction is an area of great debate in the scientific community. Alan Guth and Marc Sher wrote a scientific paper titled ‘The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe’, in which they mentioned that even if it is assumed that the universes contracts, it would be unable to repeat another bang.

Many cosmologists believe that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely and that the universe’s mass is not sufficient to cause a ‘Big Crunch’, as it requires a gravitational force that is capable of countering the force of expansion. Scientists estimated that the universe’s expansion was slowing down as a result of gravity, but it turned out – thanks to two teams of scientists who went on to win the Nobel Prize – that it is in fact completely the opposite: The universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate of speed as a result of a centrifugal force – known as dark matter – that is greater than gravity. It has a power that is the opposite to gravity and pushes the universe to expand further and further out. This centrifugal power represents the cosmological constant, the extremely precise value which left scientists stunned. The value is so fine balanced that even the change of a fraction of 10120 would be cataclysmic for the universe. Had it been even a fraction more, the universe would expand quicker so to not allow stars and galaxies to form; were it a fraction less, the universe would have rapidly collapsed on itself, soon after the Big Bang.

This poses a profound question: What exactly determined this constant of physics in this extremely precise and finely balanced manner, so that the universe and life could form? We shall discuss this in the section on the second rational indicator, Allah willing. The point here is that this centrifugal force, which many astrophysicists and cosmologists have detected, alludes to the fact that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. For example, the atheist physicist Victor Stenger said, ‘Now, it should be noted that most cosmologists currently do not expect that the big crunch will happen. The best guess based on current observation and theory is that the universe is open; that is, it will expand forever.’191

Even some scientists who are of the ‘crunch and bounce’ view cannot find any evidence from physics to prove another Big Bang would occur. Some who believe that there would be a series of large bangs state that the process would be limited by a specific number of explosions, not that this process continues into both directions of time – into pre-eternality and into the future. Other physicists are of the view that a series of bangs can continue indefinitely, but they also believe that they started at a specific point in time (i.e., it is not pre-eternal). In reasoning this:

• Some say that though the universe will go through a series of big bangs, some of its mechanical energy will deplete at each explosion, and the power within the universe will slowly diminish this way. This is because this mechanical energy has no storage that allows the universe to expand like it would have in the previous round. It would be like a ball bouncing – it will continue to bounce, but each bounce would not be as strong as the previous one, until it rests on the ground. This theory was explained by the astronomer Hugh Ross in his book The Creator and the Cosmos.

192

• I have found some physicists adopt the view that the universe, unlike the previous theory, can be volatile. They do not believe that the universe loses energy, but rather it grows larger at each Big Bang due to increased entropy, as disorder would have increased with each expansion and contraction. This disorder would be a burden of energy that would need to be released at the next Big Bang, thus leading to an even greater expansion than the previous one. This means we can go back in this series of Big Bangs and find that each subsequent explosion was larger than the previous. In other words, if we go back in time, there would inevitably be a time when the universe started at a definite moment in time. This theory was proposed by the physicist Richard Tolman.193

• Even the minority of scientists that believes it is possible to have a model of the universe that is indefinitely volatile are of the view that it is necessary to account for the quantities of energy and matter in a very precise manner. This view does not align well with atheism, as we shall discuss in the next rational proof. If this precision is a result of an external will, such a model would be impossible, as it would be self-contradictory. This is because the universe cannot simultaneously be pre-eternal and have a beginning when it was carefully balanced as per the desired requirement. However, if it is assumed that the universe was balanced without an external will pushing for this, it would automatically mean that this happened as a result of coincidence, which we will tackle in the next chapter.

This model is an evolved version of the Big Bang theory. It affirms that our universe has an origin, but it adds that this does not mean that this is the absolute beginning of all matter and energy. This view states that matter and energy are pre-eternal. To clarify, this theory proposes that the constituent parts of the universe expand and contract at varying rates. It is possible to treat these parts as various universes, or the multiverse. Though it could be the case that our universe has an origin point, this does not mean that all universes are like this. Scientists have noted that this theory has also been beset by a number of problems. This is why the cosmologist Andrei Linde attempted to solve the problem facing this model by offering a refined version of it, called new inflation. However, he himself noted that there are faults in this, which led him to propose his most famous model called chaotic inflation. In brief, it proposes that there is a ‘mother universe’ from which many new universes are spawned, and from them other universes are born – like bubbles. This process would continue forever. This theory suggests that though the new universes have a beginning, the principal universe does not. Speaking on the overall pre-eternality of the universe, he said, ‘The most difficult aspect of this problem is not the existence of the singularity itself, but the question of what was before the singularity…This problem lies somewhere at the boundary between physics and metaphysics.’194 Because of this problem, and because of the lack of impetus to affirm anything beyond the realm of physics, Linde assumed a model that negated a beginning and end for time. Just as the principal universe is pre-eternal, he argued that new universes would endlessly continue to be made. As thus, he could escape the notion of singularity and the a priori questions that come with it. In other words, he evaded searching for a cause for the emergence of the universe by making it (somewhat) pre-eternal. When we analyse this model – and all previous models – we can see that none of them are based on science. They are at best assumptions. In fact, they are just hypotheses that are designed to avoid the problem of an absolute beginning for the universe. This is why many physicists believe it is impossible to demonstrate – let alone test – the validity of these theories through evidence.

In 1994, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin published a paper. It stated that all models of future inflation could only work from a point of initial singularity, and that there must be a beginning for the universe. This paper was further developed and its conclusions were published in partnership with Alan Guth in 2001. It was further incremented and republished in 2003. The title of the paper is ‘Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete’.195 Through calculations, this short four-page paper clarifies that in any expanding universe, the relative velocity of things increases every time we retreat into the past; however, this velocity cannot continue infinitely because, as per modern physics, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (299,792 km per second approximately). Therefore, there must be a boundary at which this relativistic velocity stops, and it is this that corresponds to the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin re-emphasised the conclusion of this study in a 2012 conference held at Cambridge to celebrate Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday.196 As stated before, Vilenkin is the one who famously said, ‘Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.’197 In fact, in his book Many Worlds in One, he writes, ‘It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.’198

Some additional discussion shall come in the second rational indicator, if Allah wills. This will be done when we look at the theory of the multiverse, which represents one of this theory’s models.

The background to this objection is this: Even if it is assumed that there is a cause behind the emergence of the world, how is Allah then automatically assumed to be that cause? This is one of the most famous objections of atheists. What is strange is that when Richard Dawkins discussed the argument from temporality for the existence of God in his infamous book The God Delusion, he offered only this objection:

Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.199

Then he focuses on the attributes of Allah , and how it is possible for these to be His attributes. Upon further analysis, this strategy on his part – and by atheists in general – is a strategic evasion of the point under discussion, landing it onto a completely separate issue. Whoever uses this in evidence would be doing so to prove the existence of the non-contingent being, not its attributes. Jumping from the central point of the argument to an issue not tackled by its proponents reflects either a lack of impartiality or wanton ignorance of the rules of debate and philosophical discussion. Consider the following:

• One of the most significant areas of difference between atheism and theism is the belief of atheists in matter, and that there is no cause behind matter. The theist argument implies that there is a super-material cause that allowed the world to come into existence. This is part of the evidence – it is a brick within the construct of the rational indicator for Allah’s existence , namely that Allah  is different from His entire creation and the nature of the universe.

• The argument proves a number of issues related to the nature of this cause, which makes it a suitable argument to prove the existence of Allah, as well as some of His attributes. If the universe came into existence after nothingness, its cause must be a creator through whom this universe was created. He must be pre-eternal, as the series of causes must stop at him so that a series of infinite causality does not arise. That is to say that he must not be an effect of another cause, as the universe needs a cause that is atemporal. Furthermore, the emergence of the universe has unique features to it, which makes it an entity that emerged from will; this points to an actor who carried out this deed through his own volition. This doer acting with his own volition must be alive, as there is a difference between a live actor and a dead actor. It also suggests great power, through which this event took place; without power, no such deed could have occurred. Thus, the act of the universe’s creation suggests in itself some of the perfect attributes of Allah .

• The point of this argument is not to prove the existence of Allah with all His perfect attributes. Rather, it is sufficient to prove the least amount that is required, which is that there is a Doer who acts with power and choice. This is the point of contention with atheists. Otherwise, beyond these basic attributes, proving other attributes of the Creator  can be achieved through other forms of rational evidence, such as the argument from providence, the teleological argument, or scriptural evidence, like Allah  informing His servants of the attributes He has. It is therefore an error to dupe the recipient of this information that the point of this argument was to prove both the existence of Allah  and all His perfect attributes, in which case objections may arise such as ‘But it does not prove xyz attributes’, for that would be totally off-topic and was never the point of the argument to begin with.

This is a well-known objection. Atheists say, ‘The theists’ answer to the question “What is the cause for the emergence of the world?” with Allah is ignorance of causality. It is as if theists are filling in the gaps of their ignorance with such an answer. Theists emphasise this ignorant stance of theirs by appealing to ignorance, and thus use as evidence the opponent’s inability to dismantle it – nothing more. They fail to offer any proof for the evidentiary veracity of their statement.’ This rhetoric is another error on the part of atheists. Our affirmation of the existence of the Creator is not based on our inability to explain the ultimate cause of the universe, nor is it merely a blind leap of faith in which we shoved in the concept of God to solve a problem for which we have no answer. Rather, our belief is a result of a set of rational and instinctive propositions that offers this conclusion. Our belief of Allah being the cause for the existence of the universe is based on knowledge, not ignorance. As proven earlier, the universe is temporal. It is therefore either temporal with a cause behind it, or without a cause; the latter is impossible as temporal entities must have a cause. A cause would be either the temporal entity itself or something different; the former is impossible as it would have been non-existent before emergence – something that does not possess existence for itself cannot confer existence onto something else. Therefore, as it emerged from a separate cause, that cause must in itself be temporal or atemporal; if the former, this series must end at an atemporal cause, as infinite causality is impossible. Therefore, it becomes clear that our position is not merely the desire to fill in the gap left by ignorance, but is rather a considered and rational answer that relies on self-evident propositions.

The atheists’ protracted leveraging of this objection is a reaction to old-age human haste in explaining many of the natural phenomena through direct divine intervention. These explanations did not realise that almost all of Allah’s actions in His creation are through a set of laws and rules governing the system of the universe, as predetermined by Allah Himself. Atheists unjustly generalise this errant judgement across all reasoning processes used by believers of Allah . That Allah acts in His universe and is the existence of causes is not strange to Islamic discourse; in fact, it is a point that is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an through the mention of many causes within natural phenomena. Ibn al-Qayyim  said, ‘Were we to list the total number of places from the Qur’an and the prophetic tradition that affirm causes, they would surpass 10,000 places without exaggeration.’200

I conclude this with some important words by Richard Swinburne in his book Is There a God?, where he critiqued this objection: ‘Note that I am not postulating a “God of the gaps”, a god merely to explain the things which science has not yet explained. I am postulating a God to explain what science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains. The very success of science in showing us how deeply orderly the natural world is provides strong grounds for believing that there is an even deeper cause of that order.’201

This objection is actually a combination of a gross restriction of the definition of science on the one hand, and an exaggeration of it on the other. Atheists draw their existential philosophy from a purely material view: They have faith in only what the empirical sciences dictate, and they accept only natural material explanations for phenomena. As thus, there is no room for any supernatural or metaphysical explanation. Check what the atheist Scott Todd said – he stated in clear terms what this outlook meant: ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’202

The Darwinist and atheist Richard Lewontin said, Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.203

This exaggerated view of the capabilities of the empirical natural sciences, which is clearly partial to a narrow view of materialism, has a name coined for it in scientific and philosophical circles: scientism. It is a portmanteau of ‘science’ and the suffix ‘-ism’. It represents the ideology of the exaggerated view of the empirical sciences, restricting knowledge only to them. The roots of this ideology are actually ancient. The direction of this philosophy was steered by Auguste Comte, who formulated positivist philosophy, which spawned multiple schools of philosophy. Exaggeration on materialism only got worse as time went by. It is not a concealed fact that part of the justification of this exaggeration goes back to huge scientific and technological achievements driven by the scientific method. It was a turning point for humankind at all levels, in ways that could not have been imagined. However, the problem with this was how it looked down on other modes of the acquisition of knowledge, and how it attempted to confine knowledge acquisition to its own method, details, complexities, and distinctive ways. It is a methodological problem that leads to mass scientific problems, which are clear for all to see. The accuracy of empiricism, upon which scientism is based, is known to work either through its own method or an external method. If our understanding of the accuracy of empiricism is based on empiricism itself, that would be false, as it would become a circular argument; it would also be a self contradiction as it is improper to suggest that a claim is evidence unto itself. However, if empiricism as a method is verified by an external source, our objective would have been achieved: An external source of knowledge acquisition other than empiricism was used to verify empiricism. The fact is that every knowledge field has its own tools and cognitive sources; therefore, the attempt to force empiricism onto every field of knowledge, and to believe that it alone is suitable to answer everything, would become a methodological and cognitive problem, which would in turn lead to multiple scientific problems. The science and knowledge fields in themselves reveal these sorts of problems. History, for example, has its own sources; similarly mathematics; likewise all other subjects. The idea that the empirical scientific method alone is the tool to acquire knowledge contradicts the multiplicity of sources that are part and parcel across all subjects. In the debate between William Lane Craig and the atheist Peter Atkins, the deep-rooted confusion of atheists was exposed, as it was demonstrated to be incapable of using science to explain everything, which is exactly what Atkins was proposing during the debate.

This exaggerated outlook on the natural sources of information is like a man who goes out with a metal detector to a shore, in the hope of finding a lost ring, earring, or jewellery. Imagine you met that person and he told you that in the year he had been using this device, he did not come across even a single piece of plastic in his life, leading him to the conclusion that there is no plastic on that shore. You want to tell him that this device only detects metals, but he interjects to tell you: ‘I believe there is no plastic at all, because this detector has never revealed even a single piece of plastic.’ One cannot but wryly smile at him, knowing that the metal detector he is carrying is itself part-plastic. Thus, though natural and empirical knowledge is able to offer plenty of information on natural phenomena, this does not mean it is able to offer knowledge in all possible fields. It is a gross error to restrict the source of knowledge to this. The pathways to knowledge are as varied as the sciences, subjects, and fields of knowledge.

There are multiple writings, studies, and lectures that speak of the problems of scientism. The exaggerated vision of this outlook has rendered it into extreme dogma. Contemporary books of benefit in this regard, which deal specifically with New Atheism, include The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake204, and The Devil’s Delusion by the agnostic mathematician David Berlinski. More recently, I have come across a book by my friend, Dr. Ḥusām al-Dīn Ḥāmid, called al Ilḥād: Wuthūqiyyah al-Tawahhum wa-Khuwā’ al-ʿAdam (Atheism: Reliability of the Delusion and Emptiness of Nothingness). It is an excellent book and offers some decent analysis in these issues.

The British atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel has a book titled Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. The subheading expresses the central thesis of the book, which is quite significant. The book strives to point out the problem of narrow materialism and its utter incapability of explaining many of the phenomena of the natural world and the universe. The book reveals the great problem that scientism and atheists suffer from. It presents three key issues that Darwinism cannot offer a solution to: consciousness, cognition, and value. It also highlights the need to broaden the horizons of knowledge in order to gain a deeper understanding of knowledge and its existential reality.

Obviously, as this exaggerated view of science has become inexorably intertwined with atheism, atheist discourse is absolutely convinced that science stands against religion; in fact, atheists argue that science naturally leads to atheism. They add that religious naturalists are in fact not loyal to scientific principles, and dupe people by adopting faith. For example, Sam Harris critiqued some naturalists who, in his estimation, represent moderate religion: ‘It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm.’205

When Francis Collins was appointed director at the American National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) under the National Institute of Health (NIH) agency, he was the subject of a vicious campaign by Sam Harris. Harris said that Collins’s religion would adversely impact scientific research, and that he is in denial of the scientific and material vision for existence. Jerry Coyne also attacked Collins, stating, ‘He is polluting science with faith — and hurting public understanding of science — by pretending that empirical evidence points to the existence of God.’206 The militant atheist PZ Myers said ‘He is a creationist dupe arguing against scientific theories.’207 Collins was also described as a ‘clown’, and a talk that Collins gave at Berkeley titled The Language of God: 204 Though the book is good for revealing some of scientism’s problems, it is unfortunately a reactionist work with some exaggeration, with some of its own problems in its central thesis. It should therefore be read with a discerning mind. Sheldrake has a TED lecture, which sparked such a wide debate that the TED website initially withdrew it, but then reuploaded it after a backlash.

Intellectual Reflections of a Christian Geneticist was described as ‘a genuinely appalling load of rubbish’.208

This is despite the fact that Collins has to his name some actual great scientific feats that surpass those of his critics. Yet, his ardent defence of evolution (which Christopher Hitchens praised him for), his critique of intelligent design, and his extremely lukewarm attitude to religion could not save him from the atheists’ wrath. Their problem was not because of Collins’s pattern of religious behaviour or the number of concessions he could offer – their problem is with religion itself, no matter how it looks like. When atheists set out this scientific view of theirs, it is based on an obsession to negate the notion that Allah  exists. Their dismissive attitude means they cannot even honestly entertain the notion that there can be – just possibly – the chance of a Creator Who created this universe in the manner that He did: that He is the cause of life, that He is the origin of the rules, laws, and constants of the universe, and so on. This attitude can be clearly detected in their discussions and debates with scientists who support intelligent design. Their derisive language fills their rhetoric wherever they discuss these matters. Their aggressive attitude to alternative views is obvious, where they treat them like pseudoscience. Their lectures and debates with leading proponents of intelligent design in this regard are accessible. As an example, I invite readers to watch the debate between Stephen Meyer and Peter Ward to see for themselves how they behave.

The attitude in denying the existence of Allah  and casting Him outside the scientific scene has stopped some people from accepting certain widely accepted scientific theories, all under the pretence that they have philosophical implications that can support the existence of Allah. Some are forced to accept alternative scientific theories simply because they insist on not having Allah in the equation. This is indeed a strange thing and calls for some pause. New Atheists, with their disposition to scientism, sometimes showcase a deep-seated bigotry in favour of some aspects of science they hold dear. This bigotry reveals the deep methodological flaw in their cognitive construct. It also reveals that they do indeed have faith in the unseen; however, as alluded to earlier on, it constitutes believing in only those aspects of the unseen that agree with their materialistic mindset and atheist beliefs. The point here is to emphasise that the state of atheism stops short of following the rational implications of the evidence in front of them that ultimately leads to Allah. This goes back to a preconceived cognitive bias on their part, which casts aside the possibility that the correct answer on the question of the cause of the world’s temporality is Allah. This is not because the evidence does not point to that, but because they put in place certain conditions on how an acceptable answer should be. This also explains how they stop short from accepting the implications of scientific evidence. It also reveals one of the core differences between atheists and theists, as partiality to different outlooks on the universe is what brings them to adopt these kinds of positions. The problem with atheists is not in individual issues or some odd detail, but it rather consumes their entire cognitive methodology and how evidence-based reasoning should work. It is therefore natural that these distinct views would lead to such disparate conclusions. Such an objection by atheists – by simply referring to a future of science that is unknown, which they claim will ultimately reveal the cause of the universe – is in reality ignorance that is compensated only by having faith in an unknown and unseen future scientific discovery. Ironically, this can be referred to as the ‘science of the gaps’, which is a form of summoning the unknown to discredit an opponent’s view without having to offer any objective evidence. It is an expression of deep faith to explain what is still, scientifically speaking, the unseen. The problem with such faith is that it removes its protagonist from the prospect of ever impartially assessing any evidence for the existence of Allah. So even if a clear miracle were to occur in front of his eyes, he can simply turn around and say that he would never believe in the miracle or its implications, as future empirical science will one day reveal what exactly occurred. Further details on this issue will follow.

This idea has spread across atheist circles recently. It has become a key objection to the argument from creation and invention. This objection claims the universe to be self-sufficient and not dependent on a founder, or that it has the power to make itself, or that it is possible it emerged from nothing. This notion was proposed by Bertrand Russell in his book Why I Am Not a Christian, and is covered extensively in The Grand Design, co-authored by the famous theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. It is the same claim made by the famous atheist Lawrence Krauss in his book A Universe From Nothing, in which he claims that the universe – in light of modern physics – can emerge from nothing without the need for an external entity that would explain this emergence; rather, the emergence of the universe is from nothing. In the beginning of The Grand Design, there is a discussion on the type of questions that the book seeks to offer an answer to, and the source of information that feeds into these answers:

We each exist for but a short period of time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. The purpose of this book is to give the answers that are suggested by recent discoveries and theoretical advances. They lead us to a new picture of the universe and our place in it that is very different from the traditional one, and different even from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago.209

These answers are laden with materialist and atheist mentality, and at the same time are divorced from rational facts. The book claims that ‘because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing...’210 The problems in this passage come to light at the most cursory of investigations. Gravity is describing the natural phenomenon that is present across the universe, which could not have existed before the universe existed; how could it therefore be the cause for the universe coming into existence? (The mathematician John Lennox has a treatise, God and Stephen Hawking, in which he challenged the views of Hawking. This small work exposes the scientific and philosophical holes in The Grand Design and refutes many of its claims).

As for Lawrence Krauss, he attempted in his book A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing to convince readers that modern physics underlines that the universe could have emerged from nothing. The philosopher and physicist David Albert wrote a highly critical review on it in the New York Times, ‘On the Origin of Everything’.211 The Darwinist and atheist Jerry Coyne agreed with much of his critique, acknowledging that Krauss’s book was weak and that he was surprised by the commendations it received, especially the one by Dawkins towards the end of the book.212 It is interesting to note that Krauss did not directly respond to Albert’s review, though he did call him a ‘moronic philosopher’213, even though Albert – like Krauss himself – has a doctorate in theoretical physics. The instinct of the mind governs that every temporal event has a cause, and that it is impossible for something to happen without a cause, or that it is the cause unto its own emergence. This is precisely what Allah  alludes to in the Qur’an: ‘Or were they created by nothing, or are they their own creators?’214

As atheists have discarded these rational axioms, it is not surprising that they assert that the universe could have come into existence from nothing. The problem is compounded when they claim that this is what science says. The correct position is to adhere to rational axioms and to use them to judge knowledge gained by observing nature, not by flipping the formula and duping people into thinking that nature possesses phenomena that contradict these instinctive concepts, and therefore the concepts can be abandoned. If that were to happen, any knowledge that can possibly be acquired would fall apart. How can one believe that he is seeking to uncover the causes of natural phenomena when he is in denial of the principle of causality? Explaining the impossibility of something occurring from nothingness, Ibn Taymiyyah  said, The position that a temporal entity can originate without an originator is impossible…for a number of reasons:

1. ‘It contains the idea that a contingent entity can be preferred for existence over non-existence, without anyone exercising preponderance. This is because both the existence and non-existence of every originated entity are equally possible. If its existence would not have been possible, it would not have come into existence. As thus, that it exists means its existence was preferred over its non-existence, which requires someone exercising preponderance.

2. ‘It contains the idea that its emergence was designated at a specific time and in a specific manner. The assignment of one of two equal characteristics – which would make it (existence) win over the other (non-existence) – must have an assigner.’215

I cannot compute how someone can comprehend that the universe emerged from nothingness, but then he seeks out the causes that are behind those events that he witnesses. Would he be convinced if he were to be rendered unable of knowing that the cause came about without cause? Is there anyone who would be convinced that it is possible for a rabbit to emerge from an empty hat? What is more surprising is the bravado with which these people show off when they critique philosophy and the importance of rational investigation, despite the fact that they fall into the trap of contradicting self-evident truths in such a pitiful manner. In fact, they go on to make assertions that are highly eccentric and contradictory. Take, for example, Lawrence Krauss and his book. The idea behind it is that the universe, as per the laws of space physics, comes out into existence from nothingness. A quick read of the book would reveal that this nothingness he is talking about is not a nothingness in reality, but rather a spatial gap that is surging with activity and energy, in which fine particles come and go. Therefore, it is not an actual nothingness that we would typically infer from the term, but rather it is an existing and subsisting entity. The question therefore remains: How did this come about? The most Krauss did was a play on words by defining nothingness with his personal definition, in order for him to turn around and dictate to us about how something can emerge from nothing. It is noteworthy that during his discussion with Cardinal George Pell (head of the Catholic Church in Australia) on ABC’s Q&A programme in Australia, Dawkins attempted to explain his understanding of the ‘nothing’ that Krauss spoke of. He said, The nothing that Lawrence Krauss is talking about, whether or not it’s what a naive person would conceive as nothing or what a sophisticated physicist would consider to be nothing it is going to be something much simpler than a creative intelligence. We are struggling – we are all struggling, scientists are struggling – to explain how we get the fantastic order and complexity of the universe out of very simple and therefore easy to understand, easy to explain, beginnings. Lawrence Krauss calls the substrate of his explanation nothing. It’s possible to dispute whether nothing is quite the right word, but whatever it is it is very, very simple… At this point, the audience burst into laughter. Dawkins shouted, ‘Why is that funny!?’ Cardinal Bell noted: ‘Well I think it’s a bit funny to be trying to define nothing!’ The audience laughed out again. Yet, in the same discussion, Dawkins said, ‘Of course it’s counter intuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course, common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe.’216

It would seem that the conflation between ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ is quite pronounced, as he could no longer see the problems in his own statements. The irony here is that just a few days before this debate, Dawkins had sat down with Krauss on a public stage and highly recommended his book, stating that he was extremely impressed by Krauss’s idea that the universe came from nothing – an assertion he agreed with quite literally.217 In fact, Dawkins’s recommendation found at the end of Krauss’s book was so exaggerated that he likened Krauss to Darwin, in that Krauss’s book has the same significance in the field of physics in potentially dethroning religious views like how Darwinist biology challenged creationist views.

This is one of the most famous atheist objections against believers. It is a key rational doubt against theism in atheist discourse. Upon contemplation, it is just sparring rhetoric – nothing more. Their entire belief system rests upon the notion that Allah did not create the world. Therefore, their objection ‘So who created Allah?’ would be typical of believers’ experiences. In most contexts, these are simply tools for unfruitful quarrel and objection.

When studying the many atheist personalities that have gone by, we can easily uncover how many had this objection, and how this question took control and pressurised many minds. It is one of the most important doubts that introduced the inclination to atheism in many people. John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, David Hume, and Stephen Hawking have all stated that this question represents a problem in theism, which ultimately led them to adopt, or become convinced by, atheism. It is noted that this is also the central question in the book The God Delusion. In almost every instance, this question is heavily present in, and at the forefront of, New Atheism discourse, which one can detect by studying its writings, articles, debates, and other materials. The problems brought about by this question can be dispelled by the following points:

1. This is obviously not a new question. In fact, it is quite a natural question for people to think about. It is ultimately one of satan’s evil suggestions, and is founded on a hugely erroreous proposition. 2. This question is based on an error perpetrated by atheist discourse. It is a gross misunderstanding of the precise nature of the rational evidence for faith offered by theists. The question carries the following conceptualisation of the argument from creation and invention to support the existence of Allah :

• Everything in existence must have a cause.

• The universe exists, and therefore it must have a cause.

• The cause for its existence is Allah.

The inevitable question after this is: ‘Allah exists, but who made Him?’ The reason why this question is faulty is that the argument from creation and invention, as presented in this manner, is different to the precise nature of the argument in its proper image, as offered by those who want to demonstrate the existence of Allah . We did not claim that everything in existence has a cause. Rather, our claim is that everything which is temporal must have a cause. As for any particular existing entity, its existence a) can be non-contingent and necessary, such that minds can only envisage it to exist, and by its very nature, it is not dependent on any cause that gave rise to it; b) is contingent and therefore merely possible, with its existence dependent on a self-subsisting necessary entity; or c) is impossible, such that the mind cannot envisage its existence.

3. This question is pointless. When a person says, ‘Who then created Allah?’, the question would be inherent of self contradiction, rendering the question meaningless. If the question has no meaning, then obviously there would be no case to answer it. Imagine if, in response to this question, an answer is offered that is aligned with what theists believe in, such as: ‘Nobody created Him because He is uncreated.’ Imagine if then someone objects to this answer by saying, ‘We did not ask whether He is created or not. Rather, what we are asking about is who created Him.’ The fact is that Allah  is not a temporal being to begin with, thus rendering this question inapplicable to Him. He  is the First – there is nothing before Him . Questions like this are more like impossible questions that the other side cannot offer a valid answer to, not because they are unable to answer, but because the question itself is faulty. If a man asked you about the length of the fourth side in a triangle, it would be impossible to answer, because triangles only have three sides to them. If you are told, ‘A male gave birth to a girl – what is her name?’, the question itself would be faulty as it carries a false premise that renders it incapable of receiving an answer, because males cannot give birth. Therefore, the reality of the ‘Who then created Allah?’ question is essentially ‘Who created the one who has no creator?’, or ‘What is the cause for that which is without cause?’, or ‘What preceded the thing that has nothing before it?’ All these questions cannot be answered, as they carry a faulty premise, rendering them unqualified to be answered. Inherent to accepting a question as admissible and searching for an answer to it is to grant the questioner that his question is not self-contradictory. Given that the question has been demonstrated to be faulty and self-contradictory, then to treat such a question as admissible would be tantamount to abdicating the law of non-contradiction. Such an abdication is invalid and impossible, given that the law of non-contradiction is an instinctive rational concept that exposes the faulty premise of the question.

On the other hand, the question ‘How did the universe come into existence?’ appears to be a legitimate question and not self-contradictory. This is why this question has remained present throughout human history. The question of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ is a classical question in philosophy. 4. This question is present in prophetic discourse. The Prophet  revealed the source of the question in one’s heart, how prevalent it is in society, the techniques to repel it, and how to deal with its aftereffects.

• On the authority of Abū Hurayrah , the Prophet  said, ‘Satan comes to one of you and says, “Who created so and so?”, until he says, “Who created your Lord?” So, when he casts such a question, one should seek refuge with Allah and cease such thoughts.’218

• On the authority of ʿĀ’ishah , the Prophet  said, ‘Satan will never cease coming to anyone from you and saying, “Who created the heavens and Earth?”, and he replies, “Allah.” He will then say, “So who created you?” – he will reply, “Allah.” He will then say, “Who created Allah?” If anyone from you senses this, he should say, “I have faith in Allah and His Messenger.”’219

• In a narration, the Prophet  revealed how widespread this question is among his nation – and among people in general: ‘People will continue to ask one another questions, until “Allah created the creation, so who created Allah?” is uttered. Whoever feels any of this, he should say, “I believe in Allah.”’220

• In another narration: ‘People are on the cusp of asking each other until one of them says, “This is Allah – He created the creation, so who created Allah?” When they say that, say, “He is Allah – One and Indivisible. Allah is the Sustainer needed by all. He has never had offspring, nor was He born. And there is none comparable to Him.” Then he should spit on his left thrice and seek refuge in Allah from satan.’221

• On the authority of Anas , the Messenger of Allah  said, ‘People will just keep on asking until they say, “This is Allah, Creator of all things, so who created Allah?”’222

• In the narration of Muslim, it reads: ‘Allah  said, “Your nation will keep saying, ‘What is this? What is this?’, until they say this: ‘Allah created the creation, so who created Allah?’”’223

• The Prophet  explained that this question is a way by which satan can cause deviation: ‘People will keep asking. They will say, “What is this? What is this?”, until they say, “Allah is the Creator of people, so who created Allah?” At that moment, they will go astray.’224

• The Prophet  alerted Abū Hurayrah  that he would be asked that same question – and this indeed came to pass. He said, ‘When I was in the mosque, some Bedouins came to me and said, “O Abū Hurayrah, this is Allah, so who created Allah?”’ The narration reads that he took some stones in the palm of his hand and pelted them, saying, ‘Go away, go away – my friend spoke the truth.’225

• In another narration: ‘As he held the hand of a man, Abū Hurayrah said, “Allah and His Messenger were truthful. Two people have already asked me this – this is the third”, or “One person has already asked me – this is the second.”’226

• In another narration from Abū Hurayrah : ‘By Allah, one day, I was sitting when a man from Iraq said to me, “This is Allah, He created us, so who created Allah?” I placed my finger in my ear and shouted out: “Allah and His Messenger are truthful. He is Allah – One and Indivisible. Allah is the Sustainer needed by all. He has never had offspring, nor was He born. And there is none comparable to Him.”’227

• Some Companions are reported to have taken a severe disliking to this question out of respect to their Lord . On the authority of Abū Hurayrah : ‘Some people from the Companions of the Prophet  came and asked him, “We find in ourselves thoughts that we would consider far too heinous to utter.” He said, “And you have felt these?” They said, “Yes.” He said, “That is evident faith (īmān).”’228

• In the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās: ‘A man came to the Prophet  and said, “O Messenger of Allah, some of us feel such thoughts that we would prefer to become charred burning embers than having to utter them.” He said, “Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. Praise is for Allah Who reduced his plot to whispers.”’229

• In another narration: ‘A man came to the Prophet  and said, “O Messenger of Allah, I think to myself such things that falling from the sky would be better for me than having to utter them.” The Prophet  said, “Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. Praise is for Allah Who reduced his plot to whispers.”’230

• One narration with a questionable chain is what Aḥmad reported in his al-Musnad, hadith no. 10970: Jaʿfar said, ‘It has reached me that the Prophet  said, “When people ask you about this, say, ‘Allah was before everything. Allah created everything. Allah shall be after everything.’”’231

From these hadiths, one is able to come across the prophetic treatment prescribed for this doubt, and how to cut off satan’s whisperings:

a) Seeking refuge in Allah.

b) Saying, ‘I have faith in Allah and His Messenger’.

c) Saying, ‘He is Allah – One and Indivisible. Allah is the Sustainer needed by all. He has never had offspring, nor was He born. And there is none comparable to Him.’ d) Spitting action on one’s left.

e) To cease allowing such thoughts.

Scholarly viewpoints differ over the nature of the prophetic prescription and how it is to be applied. Explaining the hadith, Nawawī said, ‘It means to turn away from these false thoughts and to beg Allah  to make them go away. Imam Māzarī  said, Abū Sulaymān al-Khaṭṭābī said, ‘Evident faith is what prevents you from accepting what satan casts within you and believing him. It does not mean that the whispering per se is evident faith. Whisperings are born from the act and enticement of satan – how could it therefore be evident faith?’ (Sharḥ al-Sunnah, 1/110)

“The apparent meaning of the hadith is that he  commanded them to repel these thoughts by ignoring them, and by rejecting them without going through the process of reasoning and analysis to negate them. What can be said here is that thoughts are of two types…as for those doubts that are not settled, they should be repelled only through reasoning and analysis.” And Allah knows best. As for his statement, “…one should seek refuge with Allah and cease such thoughts”, it means that when one is faced by this whispering, he should resort to Allah  to repel its evil from himself, avoid dwelling on it, and know that this thought is from the whisperings of satan – all he strives for is to corrupt and lead astray. He should therefore avoid offering his whisperings any attention and hasten to detach himself from them by preoccupying himself with something else. And Allah knows best.232

As it can be observed, the states of people vis-à-vis being overcome by doubt really are of two types, as Māzarī  pointed out. Most people can repel such questions and objections by desisting and ignoring them. As for those who dwell on this question and doubts arose as a result, they would need evidence and proof to dispel that doubt in order to return balance to their fiṭrah. The question remains whether or not the aforementioned hadiths are void of mentioning any evidence that would dispel the doubt. For this issue, Ibn Taymiyyah offered a highly beneficial and detailed tract, the entire length of which I am quoting here due to its importance. In his momentous work Dar’ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa al-Naql, he said, One person who was on the method of these people – like Rāzī and others – was asked, “When confronted with this whispering, why did the Prophet  not order for a process of evidence that would explain the fallacy of serial infinity and circularity, and instead ordered to seek refuge?” He answered: “This is like one who is confronted by a dog barking at him, who is about to harm him and cut off on his path. So, he sometimes strikes it with his staff; on other occasions, he asks the dog owner to reprimand it…so proof would be the first way, which has some difficulty, and seeking refuge in Allah is the second, which is simpler.” Some have objected to this question, stating that this means the proof method is stronger and more complete. But that is not the case; the seeking refuge method is more complete and stronger, since for Allah to remove whispering from the heart is more wholesome than if man were to remove it from himself. In response, it is submitted that the question is false, and each of its answers is based on false premises and are therefore false as well. This is because the statement is based on the following notions: a) That these questions occurring to a person’s soul can be repelled through two ways: proof and seeking refuge.

b) That the Prophet  commanded to seek refuge.

c) That the proof method is the way to explain the fallacy of circularity and serial infinity.

d) That the proof method shuts down the questions that transpire to a person’s soul without the need for doing what the Prophet  mentioned.

e) That the Prophet  did not command to adopt the proof method. This is an error from a number of angles. In fact, the Prophet  commanded the proof method where it ought to be instructed. He pointed out all the comprehensive sets of proofs that analysts can look at; he also pointed out the proofs that are above and beyond the analysts’ deduction capabilities. In repelling these whisperings, he did not only command to seek refuge. Rather, he enjoined adopting faith, seeking refuge, and desisting from entertaining such thoughts. The only way of achieving salvation and felicity is through what he commanded – there is no other way.

This can be further explained through a number of ways:

i. The proof by which knowledge can be acquired via analysis must end at innate and instinctive propositions. Any knowledge that is not instinctive must end up at instinctive knowledge. This is because if theoretical propositions are always proven from theoretical propositions, this would lead to an epistemic circularity or causal regressive infinity for an entity that has a beginning – both of which are false by necessity and the agreement of all rational people. Acquired theoretical knowledge is that which can be attained by analysing known and necessary propositions that do not need analysis. Had those propositions also been theoretical, knowledge would have become contingent on another set, then another set, then another set, triggering serial infinity of theoretical knowledge in man. Yet man is temporal – he came into existence after having been non existent. The knowledge in his heart is also temporal. Therefore, if his heart cannot acquire knowledge without having knowledge prior to it, it would automatically mean that his heart cannot gain any knowledge to begin with. Therefore, it is necessary for him to have basic and self-evident knowledge, which Allah would have preplaced in his heart. Proof would ultimately stop at this knowledge. Furthermore, this instinctive knowledge may be subjected to doubts and whisperings, such as the doubts that sophists cast on sensory and self-evident knowledge. Examples of this are the doubts cast by Rāzī in the beginning of his al-Muḥaṣṣal. We have discussed those elsewhere. Doubts that are injurious to knowledge cannot be responded to through proof, because proof would ultimately stop at those doubts. Therefore, when doubt arises, the path to analysis and research is cut off. This is why one who denies sensory and instinctive knowledge should not be debated, for if he is an obstinate person in denial, he ought to be chastised until he acknowledges the truth; if he is mistaken – whether because of the adulteration of his senses or mind, resulting in his incapacity to understand knowledge, or whether it is for something else – he should be treated in a way that would enable him to acquire the prerequisites of, and remove the blocks to, knowledge acquisition; if he is unable because his health is poor, he should be treated with either natural remedies or through supplication, ruqyah, spiritual focus (tawajjuh), etc. Otherwise, he should be left alone. This is why rational people agree that not every doubt that arises can be removed through proof, analysis, or evidence-based reasoning. Only those who possess the preambles of knowledge and can observe these tools in a way that can offer him new knowledge should be engaged through these. Thus, whoever does not possess the preambles of knowledge, or is unable to analyse, cannot be engaged with via analysis or reasoning. Now this is clear, proof cannot dispel the whisperings and doubts that may have adversely affected a person’s instinctive knowledge. Conversely, when such a person thinks and analyses, these whisperings and doubts would increase in his heart, such that they would overcome him so badly he would be unable to repel them from himself, just like how he would be unable to solve a sophistic objection. Such doubts and whisperings may be repelled by seeking refuge in Allah, as He is the One Who grants refuge to the servant and protects him from doubts and predilections that have the potential to lead a man astray. This is why a servant is commanded to seek the guidance of his Lord in every prayer – he says, “Guide us along the Straight Path.”233

In the authentic hadith of the Divine, it is narrated on the authority of the Prophet : “O My servants, all of you are astray, save the ones I guide. So ask for guidance from Me – I shall guide you.” Allah  said, “When you recite the Quran, seek refuge with Allah from Satan, the accursed.”234

Allah  said, “And if you are tempted by Satan, then seek refuge with Allah. Indeed, He alone is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”235

In the Ṣaḥīḥayn on the authority of Sulaymān ibn Ṣurad: “Two men started hurling insults at each other in the presence of the Prophet . One of them became angry and his face turned red. The Prophet  said, ‘I know of a statement that, had he said it, that would have disappeared from him: “I seek refuge in Allah from the accursed satan.”’ So Allah  commands the servant to seek refuge from satan when reciting, so that his evil is warded off when the cause of good – reciting – is present; and to seek refuge when angered, so that the cause of evil (anger) is warded off. It is reported from the Prophet  that he said, “There is no heart among the hearts of servants except that it is between two Fingers of the Lord of Mercy’s Fingers – if He wills to keep it straight, He can do so; if He wills to cause it to deviate, He can do so.” The oath phrase often used by the Prophet  was “I swear by the Turner of Hearts”. Oftentimes, he used to say, “By the One in Whose Hand the soul of Muhammad lies.” In another hadith, it says, “The heart swings more than water in a large pot when it reaches boiling point.” The precedents for this principle are manifold. This is in addition to what all people know about themselves, i.e., how their hearts swing from one thought to another – whether it is in one’s beliefs or whether it is in what one wishes, and whether the thought is praiseworthy or not. Allah is the One Who can stave that off from him. As thus, seeking refuge in Allah is one pathway that leads to the goal, which analysis and reasoning simply cannot. ii. The Prophet  did not only command to seek refuge. He ordered the servant to cease such thoughts, in conjunction with seeking refuge. He was essentially informing that this question is the final act of the whisperer; one must therefore refrain from the question. The question is not the first act of the whisperer. The soul yearns to know the cause of every event, and the origin of everything, until it reaches the ultimate end. Allah  said, “…and that to your Lord alone is the ultimate return of all things.”236 Among the reported supplications that Mālik mentioned in al-Muwaṭṭa’ is: “Allah is enough for me and suffices. Allah listens – in acceptance – to the one who supplicates. There is no purpose beyond Allah.” So when a servant reaches the ultimate end, he must stop. If he wants to ask for something else after that, he must desist. The Prophet  commanded the servant to end by seeking Allah’s protection from the whisperer – serial infinity. Likewise, anyone who has achieved the end goal and ultimate purpose is commanded to cease, for every seeker and student must have a goal and an aim where he needs to stop. The reason why he must stop is because every child of Adam whose fiṭrah is unadulterated knows by way of instinct and innate predisposition that it is a wrong question, and that it is impossible that the Creator of every creation has a creator. Had that been the case and had there not been an Ultimate Creator that is uncreated but was rather part of the creation, then this would be necessarily impossible, as creations cannot exist without a creator. This is something that is known instinctively and by way of fiṭrah, even if he does not think for a moment that this ends circularity and serial infinity. When we say that all originated things cannot possibly exist without an originator, this would be inclusive of the above. Every creation is originated. So if every originated thing must have an originator, then every creation must have a creator. The same applies when we say that every contingent entity must have a non-contingent entity. As the fallacy of this question is known by fiṭrah and instinct, the command of the Prophet  was to refrain from it. There is also a command to stop short of any fallacious question whose fallacy is known, like when it is said, “When did Allah emerge?” or “When will He die?”, and similar… iii. The Prophet  ordered the servant to say, “I believe in Allah”, with the additional phrase “and His Messenger” as per another narration. This would be tantamount to facing down a harmful choice with its beneficial opposite. The statement “I believe in Allah” repels corrupt whispers from his heart.

This is why satan pulls back when Allah is remembered, and whispers when one is heedless of remembering Him. This is also why he is called ‘the whisperer’, and ‘the retreater’. He is perched on the heart of the son of Adam: if he remembers Allah, he withdraws. The word khannās (retreater) is from khunūs, which means to hide low. This is why the stars have been referred to in the Qur’an as khunnas… So the Prophet  ordered the servant to say, “I believe in Allah”, or “I believe in Allah and His Messenger”, for this statement is faith personified. Remembering Allah repels the whisperings that are injurious to instinctive and innate knowledge. This whisper resembles the doubt many people face during worship, leading them to uncertainty over whether the takbīr was said or not, whether al Fātiḥah was read or not, whether intention for worship was present or not, or whether a body part was washed during purification or not. It casts doubt in one’s instinctive and sensory knowledge. His washing of a limb would have been something he saw with his own sight; his recitation of takbīr or al-Fātiḥah would be something he knew in his heart or heard with his ears; likewise his intention for prayer; likewise his intention to eat, drink, ride, or walk. His knowledge of all these things is instinctive, definite, and comes naturally to him – it is not dependent on analysis, reasoning, or proof. Rather, it is the prelude to proofs and their fundamentals, upon which theoretical proof is to be based. When whispered that he did not wash his face, have intention, or say takbīr, it can end when a servant seeks refuge, desists from asking further questions, and says, “Of course I washed my face”, “Of course I had intention and said takbīr”. He should stay firm on the truth and repel any whisper that opposes it – satan would then see his firmness and steadfastness upon the truth, after which he would move away from him. Otherwise, when he sees him amenable to suspicions and doubts, and the type that affords a response to whispers and dangerous thoughts, he would burden him with things that he would be unable to repel. In this case, his heart would become a target point for the adverse influences and shrouded in adorned rhetoric by the satans of both humankind and demonkind. He would then move from there to other more wicked things, until satan leads him to ultimate doom. So Allah is “the Guardian of the believers – He brings them out of darkness and into light. As for the disbelievers, their guardians are false gods who lead them out of light and into darkness.”237 “Indeed, when Satan whispers to those mindful of Allah, they remember their Lord then they start to see things clearly.”238 Even though we have pointed it out in many instances, it would be appropriate here to be cognisant of the fact that many aspects of knowledge are instinctive and innate, such that when a person seeks to demonstrate evidence for them, it would become obscure and doubt might seep in, whether because of its lengthy propositions, or whether because the propositions are unclear, or both. A person attempting to reason might be unable to organise evidence for it, either because he is incapable of properly conceptualising it or because he is unable to express it. Not every conceptualisation can be orally expressed by every person. Sometimes, the listener might be unable to understand that evidence. Even if the evidence could be organised and understood, there might still be an incapacity to dispel the doubts that oppose the evidence, on the part of either the reasoner or the listener – or both.239

5. From what has preceded, it is clear that the ‘Who then created Allah?’ question is cognitively incorrect, as it combines two mutually contradictory assertions: It implies that Allah is created, which means He has a beginning; and it implies that Allah should have no beginning.

However, an atheist might claim that the claim of Allah not having a beginning is an arbitrary assertion. To answer: It has been well established that every temporal entity must have a cause. We can appreciate that this cause is most likely to be temporal as well, and it must also have a temporal cause of its own, and so on. However, there can be no doubt that the series of temporal causes must end at the first atemporal cause. Had it been temporal too, it would mean that it too would need a cause. This would lead to serial infinity, and a series of infinite causes is impossible.

To clarify further, we now mention some examples that reveal why this is impossible. One famous example for the impossibility of causal infinity is the example of the soldier and the prisoner: There is a soldier with a gun. There is a prisoner in front of him, and he wants to shoot him. However, he cannot do so until the officer behind him gives him permission. Now, let us assume that this officer cannot give permission unless another officer behind him gives permission…and so on in a never-ending series – the bullet would never be fired, as permission would never be forthcoming. If we are to assume that it was fired, that would mean that the order came from an army officer at whom the series of permission seeking ended. Typically, he would be the military official who is not in need of permission to give his order.

Another example: Assume we have a chandelier hanging from a chain. The first link would be the one holding the chandelier. But what is holding that link? Obviously, it would be the link above that, and that link would be held by the link above that, and so on. Were we to assume that the chain links went on and on, that would be impossible, as it would mean the chandelier is hanging from thin air. It would need something that holds it in place, but it cannot be any of these links because they are all dependent on something else. If we see a chandelier hanging, we can automatically assume that there is a final link piece in the chain that is connected to a ceiling, even if this ceiling was so high we could not see where it is. Still, we would be convinced that the final link, wherever it may be, is tied to something that is not dependent on being tied to something else. A third example: In dominoes, if one placed a piece vertically behind another vertically placed piece, the first would never fall until the one behind it falls on it, and the second would not fall unless the one behind it falls on it, and so on. If we assume that there is a piece behind every piece, and that no piece can fall until the one behind it falls, this would be impossible. If we see that the dominoes are starting to fall, we would be certain that there was a first domino that was moved, leading to the dominoes in front of it to fall until the very first domino. The previous examples are merely a clarification for the principle stating that infinity in the series of causes and doers is impossible. In light of this impossibility, we can understand why Allah  is the ultimate cause for the existence of this universe – He has no beginning. If we went along with the ‘Who then created Allah?’ question and an answer is given to the atheist for argument’s sake, the atheist would then immediately ask, ‘Well, what created what created Allah?’, then he would utter ‘What created the entity that created the entity that created Allah?’, until no end. Given that we know that we exist right now in this universe, and that we are emergent beings who are dependent on a cause that granted us existence, we would be convinced that the series of causes must end at a first cause that, by essence, does not have a beginning. That first cause is Allah .

Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī said, ‘The cause that we affirm for the existence of the world is pre-eternal. Had it been temporal, it would have required another cause, and likewise that would have needed another, and so on into infinity – an impossibility, or that it would inevitably stop at a pre-eternal entity, which is what we assert. We call it the Maker of the World, and He must necessarily be acknowledged.’240

Ibn Taymiyyah  said, Affirming the Maker, with its many proofs and evidence, is innate and instinctive. At this point, we say there is no doubt in the events we witness, like the emergence of clouds, rain, harvest, trees, the Sun, man, others in the animal kingdom, night, day, etc. It is known by rational necessity that the originated must have an originator. An infinite series of originators – that the originator has an originator, and that originator has an originator, and so on – is impossible. This is known as serial infinity in causes and effects, which is impossible by the agreement of rational people, as has been explained in numerous places. The objections to this have been mentioned, such as the statements of Āmidī, Abharī, alongside those of Rāzī and others, even though it is self-evident and instinctive to the minds. Those alternative thoughts are the whispers of the satan. This is why the Prophet  commanded the servant – when he experiences that – to seek refuge in Allah from it and refrain from engaging with it. He said, “Satan comes to one of you and says, ‘Who created this? Who created that?’, and he would reply ‘Allah.’ So he would then say, ‘So who created Allah?’ When anyone of you finds this, he should seek refuge in Allah and stop.” It is known that no event can happen without an originator; when there are many events and sequences, their need for an originator would be even more pronounced. They are all originated, so they all need an originator. This can only end at an originator who is not dependent on anything else, but rather is pre eternal in and of itself, which is Allah, .

6. One problem associated with this objection is that it operates from anthropomorphic assumptions, which entails: ‘If the creation is created, then who created Allah?’ The fact is Allah is as He said of Himself: ‘There is nothing like Him, for He alone is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.’242

When we know that the universe and everything in it is temporal, the cause that triggered its existence must be an entity that is external to the universe, ungoverned by the rules applicable to matter. As thus, there is no need to analogise the Creator to the creation. So that we can understand the error of this question and realise that the laws of the creation are inapplicable to the Creator, think of a puppet in a puppet show. It is moved by strings that are attached to it, making it look like it is alive and moving. Imagine it spoke, looked up to the one causing it to move, and said, ‘So who is pulling your strings?’ This question would be wrong in its own right, as it would be a non sequitur. The gulf between the Lord  and His creation is far greater than this.

7. Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are unable to answer your question. Would it be logical to turn away from a coherent answer just because you do not know an explanation for this answer? It would be like a man who went to a cave and saw old inscriptions on its wall. He concluded that this cave was once upon a time inhabited by people, and that they were the ones who sketched these. However, our friend turns around and rejects this because he does not know anything about those cavemen. He asks questions like: ‘Where did they come from? Where did they go? What are their names? What was their complexion like? What gender were they?’ Would he be correct in abandoning what is known just because there are things about them that he does not know? This type of thinking leads to the mass elimination of any cognitive acquisition of causes, because all of them can be subjected to the same test. When a man is not content with an answer unless he gains the answers to the subsequent series of questions he posed, he would never be able to gain any knowledge. 8. One observation we can conclude with is that when atheists bring this question on Allah , this act of theirs suggests a problem within themselves. They ask, ‘How can Allah be pre-eternal?’, yet they believe that the universe is pre-eternal (notwithstanding their varied expressions on this issue). As thus, the difference between us and them is not over affirming pre-eternality per se. All what we believe is that pre-eternality is unique to Allah, and that this is more proper and correct, primarily thanks to the various indicators supporting the temporality of this universe, and secondly thanks to the amazing fine-tuning of the universe construct that clearly points to a Magnificent Creator. With this objection answered, we can conclude this section. We now turn to the discussion of the second rational indicator in favour of the existence of Allah .