The best place to start is with a definition. Atheism linguistically means ‘not a theist’; in other words, someone who does not believe in a God or gods. The prefix a means none or not, and theism, coming from the word theos, denotes a ‘belief in the existence of an intervening God or gods’. Both come from Greek, but relying on the literal meaning is not enough to explain the implications of the term. So what does disbelief in a God or gods imply? Does it indicate that the one who describes himself as an atheist has positive arguments in favour of atheism? Does it mean that they are currently not convinced by any theistic arguments? Or does it mean that they just do not believe in any gods?

Academics have not reached a consensus on a definition for atheism, but my concern is not with philosophical hair-splitting. My focus is a practical one.5 Let’s address the first question I raised: Does it indicate that the one who describes himself as an atheist has positive arguments in favour of atheism? In this sense, an atheist is someone who makes a knowledge claim—that there is no God. Nevertheless, such a claim requires justification. The claim is a positive assertion, and it requires some sort of argument to back it up. Therefore, this type of atheist must provide evidence for their position.

This leads us to the second question: Does it mean that the atheist is currently not convinced by any theistic arguments? This seems to be far removed from atheism and is entering into the realm of agnosticism. Holding such a position would imply that if a good argument were offered for God’s existence, they would have to accept it. Finally, we have the question: Does it mean that the person is someone who just does not believe in any gods? If an atheist disbelieves based on mere choice, in the absence of any rational investigation, then how does that differ from any other belief, whether it is the belief in fairies or astrology? From my experience, the question why do you believe in no gods?

is an excellent conversation starter with an atheist (see Chapter 4). Depending on the response I receive, I clearly know if they are agnostics, atheists who believe without any positive evidence, or if they have found an argument against God. If they are agnostics, then the best strategy is to provide good reasons for why you believe God exists. If they are sincere, and the argument is valid, then they should accept the existence of the Divine. If they believe in no gods without evidence, then what I find useful is to get them to question and think about their beliefs. I would ask them: What evidence do you have to reject God’s existence? I would also show them the negative implications of just believing in something based on mere choice without any reasoning or intellectual basis. If they claim to have found evidence against God’s existence, I would ask them for the evidence. In that case, as a Muslim, it would be my job to show how the evidence they have provided is false or misunderstood, while at the same time presenting a case for why God does exist.

So here’s a summary of what it practically means to be an atheist. Firstly, there is the negative assertion that one is simply a disbeliever in a God or gods. Secondly, there is the view that the current arguments for God’s existence are not convincing, which implies agnosticism. Finally, there is the positive assertion that there are no gods. Such an assertion requires an argument. From my experience, regardless of the hair-splitting debates on this issue, many atheists are atheists simply because they are not convinced by any argument in favour for the Divine. This means that most atheists are not really atheists at all, but closet agnostics. So there is hope, and all one has to do is offer a good argument for theism. It is important to note that the practical definitions I have proposed here are not binary; there are varying degrees of each type of atheist. Atheists can also be described as having one or a combination of these definitions. If only it was that easy. Human beings are not intellectual robots. An array of emotional, social, spiritual and psychological factors determines which worldview we adopt. Unravelling the vast number of variables that lead to certain decisions or beliefs is impossible. However, from my experience, atheism is not a strict intellectual decision born out of reason and science. On the contrary, atheism is deeply rooted in psychology (although I appreciate this applies to some and not all atheists).

Misotheism: hatred of God.

Although not considered a form of atheism, I thought it would be of great interest to elaborate on another type of rejection of the Divine. Rather than rejecting God’s existence, this perspective involves a hatred of God and a wish that He did not exist. Known as misotheism, coming from the Greek misos, meaning hatred, and theos meaning God, this religious rebellion has been lurking in the dark. It is time some light was shed on this denunciation of God, which some might argue is the psychological basis for certain types of atheism. Associate Professor Bernard Schweizer has written a book on the topic; after sifting through a number of literary works of prominent thinkers and writers, including Algernon Charles Swinburn, Zora Neale Hurston, Rebecca West, Elie Wiesel, Peter Shaffer and Philip Pullman, he concludes that they seem to struggle with the idea of a compassionate and merciful God in a world of evil and suffering. He indicates that the motivation for their hatred of God is due to being “generally motivated by admirable humanistic impulses”6

. Schweizer also indicates that the misotheist is emotionally and psychologically troubled. He argues that it is “quite true that the psychologically, emotionally, and physically wounded are most likely to turn away from God”7

, and that it is “by no means certain that more effective forms of ministering would help douse the fires of misotheism or block the path to atheism”8

. Although these thinkers and writers represent different types of misotheists, they all question God’s role in human suffering:

“The situation is different for the misotheist. To him, the incompatibility of widespread evil with the image of a benevolent God is a real problem, not merely a case of hair-splitting theological arguments. Misotheists are genuine accusers of God, and they will hold him accountable for random evil and undeserved suffering. Thus, atheists and misotheists come to the question of God’s role in human suffering from opposed directions: the unbeliever would say that the misotheist makes an invalid claim based on fiction. To the misotheist himself, precisely because he is a believer, God is not a scapegoat but an accomplice or an instigator of evil.”9

Schweizer’s study is quite nuanced. He categorises misotheism into agnostic misotheists, absolute misotheists and political misotheists. To summarise the professor’s main point, the misotheist is motivated by a key question: What has humanity done to deserve God and all the evil and suffering that He allows to occur? From my experience, I would contend that quite a few atheists are closet misotheists. One question to ask that usually testifies to this conclusion is: If God did exist, would you worship Him? (see Chapter 15). The response from many atheists that I have encountered would be no, and they frequently cite the amount of ‘unnecessary’ and ‘gratuitous’ evil and suffering in the world. Although I empathise with their concern and anguish at the suffering inflicted on fellow sentient beings, atheists and misotheists alike suffer from a veiled type of egocentrism. This means they make special effort not to see the world from any perspective other than through their own eyes. However, in doing so, they commit a type of emotional—or spiritual—fallacy. They anthropomorphise God and turn Him into a limited man. They assume that God must see things the way we see things, and therefore He should stop the evil. If He allows it to continue, He must be questioned and rejected.

Comparing man with God exposes their inability to understand things holistically. The misotheist would probably at this point exclaim that this means man has more compassion than God. This further highlights their inability to see things from beyond their perspective, and reveals their failure to fathom that God’s actions and will are in line with a Divine reason that we cannot access. God is not content with the occurrence of evil and suffering. God does not stop these things from happening because He sees something we do not, not because He is content with evil and suffering to continue. God has the picture and we merely have a pixel. Understanding this facilitates spiritual and intellectual tranquillity because the believer understands that ultimately, all that occurs in the world is in line with a superior Divine wisdom that is based on superior Divine goodness. Refusing to accept this is actually where the misotheist falls into the quagmire of arrogance, egocentrism and ultimately, despair. He has failed the test; his hatred of God makes him forget who God is and dismiss the fact of Divine wisdom, mercy and goodness (see Chapter 11).

Atheism and Philosophical Naturalism.

Before I discuss the Islamic definition of atheism, this chapter is a good opportunity to introduce a concept that will be referred to in many chapters of this book. Like atheism, philosophical naturalism denies the Divine and the supernatural. Therefore, it is not surprising that most atheists adopt philosophical naturalism as a worldview. Philosophical naturalism is the view that all phenomena within the universe can be explained via physical processes. These physical processes are blind and non-rational. This means that they are not intentionally directed towards a goal or a destination and they are not able to create and recognise logical relations between things or ideas.

Philosophical naturalists reject all supernatural claims and some argue that if there is anything ‘outside’ the universe it does not interfere with it. Atheists, according to Professor Richard Dawkins, are philosophical naturalists. As stated by Dawkins, an atheist “believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world”.10 However, some atheist academics are not naturalists. Although these atheists deny the Divine, they affirm the existence of non-physical phenomena. For the theist, this type of atheism is—generally speaking—easier to intellectually engage with because they do not dismiss non-physical phenomena. In this respect there is some common ground with theism. It is important to note that most atheists who assert evidence against God’s existence—or argue that there is an absence of strong evidence for the Divine—adopt philosophical naturalism, implicitly or explicitly. Nevertheless, most of the arguments presented in this book can still be used toward atheists who do or do not adopt philosophical naturalism.

Islamic definition.

The traditional Islamic term for atheism is ilhaad, which literally means ‘deviation’, best translated as ‘godlessness’. The term ilhaad comes from the Arabic word lahad, which is used to describe a type of Islamic grave where a hole is dug and a side pocket is made for the deceased. In this sense the lahad is a deviation from the main hole that is dug. Linguistically, this implies that atheism is a deviation of what is natural and rational. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم taught that all human beings are born with an innate nature or primordial state that essentially acknowledges God and has an affinity to worship the Divine (see Chapter 4).11 This Prophetic teaching provides a clear basis for the Islamic belief that atheism is unnatural and an aberration of the human psyche. According to Islamic theology, God’s names include The-Creator (Al-Khaaliq), The-Sustainer (Al-Muqeet), and The-Originator (Al-Mubdi). Atheists reject these names as they deny the idea of a creator for the universe. The Islamic doctrine of God’s oneness, known as tawheed, considers denying any of God’s names and attributes as a form of polytheism (see Chapter 15). Therefore, from the Islamic point of view, atheists are considered polytheists. It is not surprising to see that the Qur’an affirms that those who reject a creator “are not certain”12 and describes those who reject monotheism as “fools”13

A brief history of atheism.

In Islamic history Atheism was not a major social and intellectual threat until the emergence of the 8th century Dahriyya. These thinkers were empiricists who believed that all knowledge could only be acquired via the empirical method. They believed that the cosmos was eternal and composed of four qualities, which were responsible for everything that existed. They argued that everything had always existed and did not require any creator or maker.14

According to Kitab al-Aghani by Faraj al-Isfahani, Abu Hanifa, the famous jurist and founder of one of the traditional schools of thought, debated a Dahri in the 8th century. Abu Hanifa was known to have intellectually hammered the Dahriyya in public debates (see Chapter 8). Many of the Islamic scholars responded to the claims of the Dahriyya, including Al-Ghazali, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Jaḥiẓ, Muhammad b. Shabib, Ibn Qutayba, and Abu ‘Isa al-Warraq.15 In Al-Ghazali’s book, Kimiyaʾ-yi sa‘adat, he describes the Dahriyya as reductionists who do not have a holistic understanding of the universe and its purpose. He asserts that they are like ants on a piece of paper that cannot lift their eyes from the ink or the pen they see before them, thus failing to see who is writing.16

The Islamic history of atheism clearly shows an environment of intellectual discussion and debate, which could only have been facilitated by mutual respect and tolerance. The Qur’an makes it absolutely clear that having myriad beliefs is part of God’s will, and that there should never be any form of compulsion but mutual respect and tolerance:

“And had your Lord willed, those on Earth would have believed—all of them entirely. Then, would you compel the people in order that they become believers?”17

“There is no compulsion in the religion.”18

The Islamic thinker and scholar, Dr. Jaafar Idris, aptly summarises Islam’s stance on other beliefs: “Existing peacefully with non-Islamic beliefs is an essential Islamic principle that is clearly stated in many Qur’anic verses, and that has been practiced by Muslims throughout their history. It is not something that Muslims impose on their religion or something that they have to resort to because of exceptional external circumstances. It is a requirement demanded by the nature of the religion….” The intellectual heritage of Islam should provide confidence for Muslims who are exposed to contemporary challenges that confront the rational foundations of their religion. Many of the answers to so-called new objections from atheist and secular thought have already been dealt with by Islam’s classical scholarship. From this perspective, Muslims are standing on the shoulders of giants. Their only concern should be accessing that wealth of knowledge and learning how to contemporise it by using a language that is modern, relevant and applicable.

In the West Atheism was not a popular movement in antiquity, and it did not have a substantial following. According to historians, all we have in this period are individuals (cases of exception) “who dared to voice [their] disbelief or bold philosophers who proposed intellectual theories about coming into existence of the gods without, normally, putting their theories into practice or rejecting religious practice altogether.”20 The first use of the term atheism can be traced back to the Greek scholar Sir John Cheke in a translation of Plutarch’s On Superstition. In France during the 1600s, atheism inspired polemical writings and socio-political measures against its worldview.21 Atheism was perceived as a threat even as early as the 1700s in Britain. The celebrated playwright and essayist Joseph Addison wrote a book titled The Evidence of the Christian Religion, which had a section against atheism. In this part of the book, he describes atheists in the following way:

Post 1960s saw the death of logical positivism. One of the key reasons for its demise was the fact that it was self-defeating. The logical positivists’ criterion for meaning was that any statement had to be verified by physical experience; however, the criterion itself could not be verified by physical experience. Consequently, the criterion itself was meaningless. After the demise of logical positivism, the academic world saw the intellectual resurrection of theism. Time magazine in 1980 commented on the rise of intellectual theism: “In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not amongst theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.”27

One reason for the intellectual revival of theism was the intriguing scientific discoveries of the mid-20th century. These include the ‘Big Bang’, which postulates a cosmic beginning to the universe. This was a departure from conventional thinking that postulated the universe was static and eternal, needing no creator (see Chapter 5). In the 1970s, cosmologists discovered the intriguing phenomenon of fine tuning, which explicitly demonstrated that the universe’s laws and arrangement seemed designed and fine-tuned so that complex conscious life, like human beings, could exist (see Chapter 8). Near the beginning of the 20th century, we had an utterly inadequate understanding of biology’s nuts and bolts. We thought cells—the building blocks of organisms—were just homogenous blobs of protoplasm. In 1953, however, James Watson and Francis Crick demonstrated the double helix structure of DNA, the information-storage device of the cell. Following this discovery, the molecular biological revolution continued, unearthing more and more fascinating, sophisticated features on a microscopic level. Crick (an atheist himself) was so impressed with the universality of the genetic code that he became convinced that this could not have happened by chance, and argued that some sort of extra-terrestrial intervention was involved.28 These discoveries and progresses in science, as well as their philosophical implications, progressively brought theism back onto the intellectual and academic discussion table. Today, theism is a perfectly respectable position.

To this date, numerous academic publications have attempted to answer the God question. This has trickled down to the popular level, where many books have been written on the topic. Social media has millions of posts on the issue.

The growth of Atheism In spite of these factors, atheism is now one of the fastest-growing social and intellectual movements. The past twenty years have featured an increase in people who describe themselves as atheists or non-religious. This movement, also known as new atheism, has begun to articulate a case for atheism and secularism (generally considered the political manifestation of atheism). Modern atheist writers and academics, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Dan Dennet, have extensively promoted this movement. Their books have become bestsellers, and thousands have viewed their public lectures. However, some would argue that their rhetoric has been nasty, circular and quite unnuanced. The late Christopher Hitchens argues “religion poisons everything” , Sam Harris asserts “the days of our religious identities are clearly numbered”30 and Richard Dawkins maintains that God is “delusion”. Notwithstanding these similarities, atheists do not form a homogenous group. Certain atheist academics actually disagree with the new atheist discourse. For instance, the philosopher Tim Crane writes: