Katika sura iliyotangulia, ilionyeshwa kwamba utambuzi wa Mola ndani ya fitrah hutangulia uchambuzi na hoja. Alama iliyowekwa katika nafsi inamlazimu mtu kumkiri Yeye, mradi hisia zake ziko katika hali ya kawaida na vizuizi havipo. Iwapo mtu atatumbukia katika shaka au kutojali, basi mantiki ina nafasi ya kuimarisha utambuzi unaotokana na fitrah kwa kuikumbusha nafsi. Ibn Taymiyyah alisema, ‘Hakuna mgongano baina ya elimu ya asili inayojidhihirisha yenyewe na kuwepo kwa ushahidi unaoiunga mkono.’107

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

Wahyu unaonyesha hoja kuu za kiakili katika suala hili na mengine. Tukitafakari jinsi wahyu unavyoshughulikia suala hili, tunaona mambo kadhaa:

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

1. Zana za hoja zenye mantiki katika Qur'ani na Sunna ya Nabii ﷺ ni rahisi na wazi kabisa. Ni rahisi kueleweka na zinapatana kikamilifu na fitra.

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

Zana hizi ndizo ushahidi wa kiakili wenye manufaa zaidi na zinaendana na nafsi nyingi. ‘Ushahidi wa kiakili ulio rahisi kufahamika na kueleweka, na ulio wazi kwa akili, una uwezekano mkubwa wa kuaminika.’108 Ibn Rushd anaonyesha urahisi wa hoja zilizomo katika wahyi, na jinsi zinavyomwongoza mtu kwa ufanisi hadi lengo. Alisema: ‘Mbinu za kidini zinapochunguzwa, nyingi zinakutwa zikiwa na sifa mbili: ni za hakika, na ni rahisi, si changamano, yaani ni chache kwa idadi ya hoja zao za msingi. Kwa hiyo, hitimisho lake lingekuwa karibu sana na hoja zake za msingi.’109

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

2. Wingi na utofauti.

2. Abundance and variety.

Hii ni wepesi (kurahisishwa) ambao Allah amewapa waja Wake. Ibn Taymiyyah alisema: "Kadiri watu wanavyohitaji kujua jambo fulani, ndivyo Allah anavyowarahisishia ushahidi wa elimu yake, kama vile hoja za kumjua Yeye ni Nani, hoja za utume wa Mjumbe Wake ﷺ, hoja za uwezo Wake na elimu Yake, n.k. Hoja kama hizo ni nyingi na zenye kuthibitisha."110

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

Upande mmoja wa hoja ya kimantiki juu ya kuwepo kwa Mungu ni kwamba athari huonyesha sababu yake, na wahyi ulikuja kutukumbusha hoja hii kwa maneno mbalimbali na katika miktadha mingi. Kwa kuzingatia hili, inawezekana kumthibitisha Yeye kupitia uumbaji wake wote, kwani vyote ni mojawapo ya athari zake. Kwamba athari huonyesha sababu ni hoja kuu inayojumuisha hoja nyingi ndogo, ambazo idadi yake ni sawa na utofauti uliopo katika uumbaji. Kama alivyosema Ibn Rushd alipokuwa akifafanua hoja ya uvumbuzi kwa ajili ya kuwepo kwa Muumba: ‘Na katika aina hii kuna viashiria vingi kulingana na idadi ya vitu vilivyovumbuliwa.’111 Kwa hakika, ‘hakuna uumbaji usiokuwa wenyewe ni ishara inayoelekeza kwa Muumba wake, kwa namna inayokataa mshirika yeyote kuhusishwa Naye’.112

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

Mshairi Abū al-ʿAtāhiyyah alisema:

The poet Abū al-ʿAtāhiyyah  said:

Hakika, sote tutakuwa tumepitwa na wakati.

‘Lo, we are all going to become obsolete.

Ni nani miongoni mwa watoto wa Adamu anayeweza kubaki milele?

Who from the children of Adam can remain forever?.

Asili yao ni kutoka kwa Mola wao.

Their origin is from their Lord.

Na kila mmoja atarejea kwa Mola wake Mlezi.

And everyone shall return unto his Lord.

Ole, Mungu anawezaje kuasiwa?

Alas, how can the Divine be disobeyed?.

Na inawezekanaje kumkana Yeye?

And how can He be denied?.

Allah yupo katika kila harakati.

Allah has in every motion.

Na katika kila wakati wa kusimama tuli, kuna ushahidi.

And in every stationary moment a testament.

Na katika kila kitu Yeye ana ishara.

And in everything He has a sign.

Kuashiria kwamba Yeye ndiye Mmoja.’.

Pointing out that He is the One.’.

Ni wazi, kwa hiyo, kwamba kauli "Allah ana njia kwake kwa kiasi cha pumzi zote zinazochukuliwa na viumbe" si mbali na ukweli.113.

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

3. Qur'ani kwa kiasi kikubwa inashughulikia suala hili kwa njia ya dalili za kimaana (mafungamano) na hoja ya kulinganisha ya kiwango cha juu (argumentum a fortiori).

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

Kwa kawaida, hoja nyingi katika Qur’ani zinazotajwa kuthibitisha kuwepo Kwake hutolewa ili kuthibitisha jambo pana zaidi, kama vile Upweke Wake katika ubwana na uungu. Aya za namna hii zinabainisha kuwepo kwa Allah kwa maana ya dalala ya lazima. Kwa kuwa aya hizi zimetolewa ili kuthibitisha Upweke wa Allah na kueleza baadhi ya sifa Zake kamilifu, basi pia zinatoa ushahidi wa kuwepo Kwake kwa njia ya dalala. Mbinu hii ya ushahidi ni ile inayoitwa argumentum a fortiori, kama inavyodhihirika. Kwa mfano, Allah anasema: ‘Sema, ewe Nabii, “Je, nimtafute mola mwingine asiyekuwa Allah, na hali Yeye ndiye Mola wa kila kitu?”’114 Basi, kwa Allah kuwa Mola wa kila kitu, inaashiria kwamba Yeye ana sifa za utawala kamili, uumbaji, na upangaji. Hii inaonyesha kwamba lengo la Qur’ani halikuwa tu kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Allah, bali pia kuiunganisha viumbe na Muumba wao, kufichua sifa Zake kamilifu, na kueleza heshima, utukufu, na ibada ya kumpwekesha inayostahiki Yeye. Kuhusu kutambua tu kwamba viumbe wana Mola aliyewaumba na kwamba wanamhitaji, hilo tayari limeshachorwa katika fitrah yao.

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

4. Kupitia maneno yake mbalimbali, wahyu unalenga kuchochea na kumkumbusha mwanadamu juu ya sehemu ya fitrah.

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

Qur'ani huamsha nafsi ya mwanadamu kutumia njia zinazofaa katika hali mbalimbali anazokabiliana nazo, ili kufikia matokeo anayoyataka. Kwa mfano, Allah (SWT) anasema: '{Kwa wale wasioamini Akhera ni sifa mbaya zote, na kwa Allah ni sifa tukufu zaidi. Naye ndiye Mwenye nguvu, Mwenye hekima.}'115 Pia inamkumbusha mja nafasi yake halisi mbele ya Mola wake na haja yake Kwake anapompata msiba: '{Ndiye anayekuwezesha kusafiri katika nchi kavu na baharini. Hata mnapokuwa majahazini, zikienda kwa upepo mzuri, nao wakafurahi kwa hilo, ghafla zinapatwa na upepo mkali, na mawimbi yanawajia kutoka kila upande, nao wakadhani kuwa wamezingirwa. Hapo wanamwomba Allah peke yake kwa ikhlasi, wakisema: "Ukituokoa na haya, bila shaka tutakuwa miongoni mwa wenye shukrani."}'116 Qur'ani pia inasema: '{Kila mtu anapoguswa na dhiki, huomba msaada Kwetu, akiwa amelala ubavuni, au ameketi, au amesimama. Lakini tunapomwondolea dhiki yake, hurejea katika njia yake ya zamani kana kwamba hakuwahi kutuomba kuondoa dhiki iliyomfika! Hivyo ndivyo matendo maovu ya wapotevu yalivyowapambia.}'117

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

Vipengele vya hoja kutokana na mantiki:

Components of the argument from logic:

Tukichunguza asili ya dalili ya kiakili inayoonyesha kuwepo kwa Allah, tutaona kwamba inaundwa na sehemu mbili muhimu:

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

1. Dhana za asili zinazozaliwa nazo kwa silika.

1. Instinctive innate concepts.

2. Uchunguzi na hisia.

2. Observation and the senses.

Hoja hizi zinazothibitisha kuwepo kwa Mwenyezi Mungu ni hakika za kimaumbile zilizo ndani ya mwanadamu, kama vile kutokubalika kwa upendeleo bila sababu ya upendeleo, uhitaji wa kitu kilichosababishwa kwa sababu yake, na kanuni ya sababu na matokeo. Hoja nyingine zinatokana na hizi. Hivyo, kuwepo kwa kitu baada ya kutokuwepo kwake huleta swali kuhusu sababu na upendeleo: Ni nini hasa kilichoipa upendeleo kuwepo kwa kiumbe hiki badala ya kutokuwepo kwake? Ni sababu gani iliyokitoa kutoka kwenye hali ya kutokuwepo kuingia katika ulimwengu wa kuwepo? Vilevile, muundo mkamilifu wa ujenzi wa ulimwengu ni matokeo yanayohitaji sababu, na kadhalika. Uwepo wa sehemu hii ya kimaumbile ndio unaofanya aina hii ya hoja kuenea sana na kueleweka kwa urahisi. Ndiyo iliyomfanya Mbedui kutamka msemo wake maarufu: "Kinyesi cha ngamia kinaonyesha uwepo wa ngamia. Nyayo zinaonyesha safari. Basi anga lenye nyota zake na ardhi yenye mabonde yake – kwa nini visimwonyeshe Aliye Juu, Mwenye ujuzi wote?"

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

Hizi zinadhihirisha picha na matukio yanayoonekana na kuhisika duniani. Mantiki hutumika juu ya uchunguzi huu, ikimwezesha mtu kufikia hitimisho; haya ni matunda ya mchakato wa kufikiri unaotegemea ushahidi. Viumbe vinavyofahamu kwamba hisi zinaelekeza kwa Allah (SWT) hujua kwamba wao ni mojawapo ya athari Zake. Kwa mtazamo huu, kila aina ya kiumbe huitwa kwa Kiarabu ʿālam (kihalisi: ulimwengu). Ibn Taymiyyah anajadili kwa nini ʿālam huitwa ʿālam: ‘ʿĀlam ni kile kinachotoa ujuzi, kama vile khātam ni kile kinachotumika kufunga…Kila aina ya viumbe huitwa ʿālam kwa kuwa ni ishara na dalili ya Muumba – tofauti na ʿālim, ambaye ni mwenye kujua, kama vile khātim, ambaye ni mwenye kufunga. Alisema, “…lakini ni Mtume wa Allah na muhuri wa manabii”118

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

…kwa sababu yeye ndiye muhuri wao.’ Ingawa viumbe vyote vinaashiria Yeye, vinatofautiana katika kiwango cha kuashiria kwao. Ingawa vitu visivyo hai vinaashiria Allah, kuashiria kwao ni dhaifu kuliko viumbe hai. Kuna tofauti kati ya dalili ya Allah inayotolewa na kokoto ndogo na ile ya binadamu. Sehemu ya tofauti hizi za viwango vya kuashiria inarudi kwenye asili ya dutu (eneo la somo la kufikiri) na asili ya mtazamaji (mwenye kufikiri).

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

Ingawa msimamo wa wanatheist kuhusu utambuzi wa Allah kuwa wa kuzaliwa nao ni wazi, na kwamba inawezekana kutumia hoja za kiakili kumkumbusha mwanadamu ule mwelekeo wake wa asili na kupata utulivu wa moyo katika jambo hilo, uwanja wa mjadala katika duru za falsafa ni huu: Je, inawezekana kutoa hoja za kiakili kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa Allah au haiwezekani?

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

Mtazamo mmoja juu ya hili ni huu: inawezekana; dhidi yake; na misimamo ya kati ambayo ima imechanganyikiwa au inasita kuelekea upande wowote. Wasioamini kuwepo kwa Mungu (agnostics), kwa mfano, hawana msimamo juu ya kuwepo kwa Mungu – hawakubali wala hawakatai kuwepo kwake. Ingawa baadhi yao wana mtazamo huu kwa sababu wanaona kuwa ushahidi pande zote mbili unafutana, wengine wenye mtazamo huu wanasema kwamba kutokuwa na uhakika wao kunatokana na ukweli kwamba haiwezekani kwa akili ya binadamu kufikia hitimisho thabiti katika jambo hili. Wanadai kuwa zana zetu za kiakili haziwezi kutoa jibu lolote kwa swali la kuwepo kwa Mungu. Msimamo huu unakanusha uwezekano wa swali la kuwepo kwa Mungu kujibiwa. Kabla ya kuingia kwenye maelezo ya hoja zinazoashiria kuwepo kwake, tunapaswa kwanza kushughulikia suala la upeo wa uwezekano wa kumjua Mungu kwa hoja za kiakili. Je, tunaweza kutumia uwezo wetu wa kiakili kufikia jibu katika jambo hili? Ingawa wanadamu wanaomwamini Mungu hawafanyi hivyo kwa njia ya majaribio au ya hisia za moja kwa moja, hilo halijawazuia kuwa na imani kwake. Wanaamini kwa msingi wa a) mahitaji ya fiṭrah, na b) hoja mbalimbali za kiakili. Hii ni pamoja na ushahidi uliotolewa na Manabii na Mitume ambao unaelekeza sio tu kwenye kuwepo kwake bali pia sifa zake kamilifu. Ili kufafanua kwamba Allah (SWT) anaweza kutambuliwa kwa akili, inapaswa kutambuliwa kwamba kila kitu kilichopo ni cha aina mbili:

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