The Right Beginning

Due to its comprehensive nature, it was a long-term desire of mine to write some detailed explanatory notes to this precious book of Shaykh Saduq, but the profusion of other religious duties always impeded the fulfilment of this desire. However, due to the insistence of many virtuous friends during the previous years compelled me to find some time to initiate this religious work. Therefore, with the support of Allah Ah’san al-Fawa’id Fi Shahr al-Aqa’id was commenced. We hope that our efforts would be appreciated by the readers.

Is Belief In God Self-Evident Or Just A Concept?

Since the great master has treated the belief in God as an essential intrinsic phenomenon, he has therefore, abandoned the need to prove His existence. He has mentioned this in chapter eight of this book.

It should remain clear that there are three assertions on the self-evident nature of God.

1. The concept is so obvious that it does not need to be bound by a reason.

2. The idea is partly self-evident and partly conceptual or imaginative.

3. It is completely abstract and is subject to reason.

As it is said – Khair al-A’mooro Au’satuha - the middle approach seems more credible. The other two statements are not suitable on the basis of their imbalanced view. The middle approach means that the self-evidence of God, in its simplest form, is acceptable; and, that a knowledgeable Creator must exist to explain the survival of this Universe. However, full comprehension about whether the divine being is one or many; whether He is confined in space and time; the nature of His essence and composition; and whether or not He is visible to physical eyes, is definitely required.

The understanding of these issues is evidently subject to reason and argument. In this discussion, minor adjustments could be made between various Verses and traditions, which point towards the apparent or the conceptual aspects of His existence.

Acceptance Of God In Its Simplest View Is Self-Evident

As it is stated earlier, the acceptance of the Creator of the Universe, in its simplest form, is inherent, and it is not subject to any argument or reason. The acceptance of the existence of God is part and parcel of human nature. Just as the sum is always bigger than its parts, or that it is impossible to implement two opposites in one system at the same place and at the same time, or that a dependent cannot also be self-sufficient at the same moment, or that the coolness and warmth are the accepted characteristics of ice and fire – in the same way this proposition also is self-evident that an effect cannot exist without a cause, or an imprint cannot make its mark without a printer or an act cannot be in existence without an actor, and a product cannot be realised without a maker, a building cannot exist without its base and life cannot initiate without its ingredients. This is why even the most famous of the polytheists did not have the strength to deny the Creator. This is why the Qur’an says:

وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ

“And should you ask them, Who created the heavens and the earth? They would most certainly say: Allah” (39:38).

If there is doubt about the existence of the fundamental then how could the reality of anything else be proven?

The Qur’an says:

قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللَّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ

“Their messengers said: Is there doubt about Allah, the Maker of the heavens and the earth?” (14:10).

That is why a poet says that if a dazzling day is subject to an argument for its existence; then how could the existence of anything else be accepted in one’s mind.

Scholars know that reason and its basis are required to be more lucid than the person for whom they are referred. Therefore, if God is subjected to a reason and argument, then it should be more articulate than God, which is basically wrong. Imam Al-Husayn (‘a), who said, highlighted this fact,

“How can we use an article to prove Your being, when it needed You for its existence? Is Your other, more conspicuous than Yourself that it may become thy apparent recognition? O God, when were You hidden that you were subjected to a reason. May that eye be blinded who does not see You as a guard on her?”

It is for this reason that the anthropologists have discussed the issue in detail that when man was in his most natural surroundings i.e. when knowledge, technology and civilisation, as we know today were absent, did he then initiate worship of idols or that of God? Besides the materialists, the majority of researchers are convinced that man worshipped God first.

Therefore, Max Müller wrote in his book,

“Our ancestors bowed before God, when they were even unable to name Him.”

That is why since the advent of human history the concept of God was found in every part of the living world. Egyptians, Syrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Caledonians and Jews were all believers of God.

Plutarch says,

“There are many parts of the world where we may not find the signs of forts, erudition, industry, technology and politics but there is no place in the world where God is not mentioned.”

The external forces mostly dampen this inner recognition, and that is why God has warned about this trait of human behaviour on several occasions. His Messengers, whose main task was to invite people towards the oneness of God, wherever they saw evidence of such behaviour, i.e. where people were in doubt about the being of God, they always endorsed this aspect of human nature and addressed them in an astounding manner, asking, “Are you in doubt about the Creator of the Heaven and Earth?”

It is mentioned that famous researcher Dawwani decided to write a paper on the attestation of God’s existence. His maidservant asked him about the nature of his work and he replied that he intended to write a paper on the evidence of the existence of God. She then recited the same Verse of the Qur’an:

أَفِي اللَّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْض

“… Is there doubt about Allah, the Maker of the heavens and the earth?” (14:10).

It is reported that Dawwani then abandoned his thought of writing such a document.

Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a), while elucidating on a lengthy Hadith about the unity of God states,

“All praise is for the God who taught His servants the ways of adoring and praising Him and created them with the (inborn) perception of His oneness.”

The fact of the matter is that the existence of God is much more evident and vivid than the allure of Sun and the Moon. It is not subject to any argument or reason. Nevertheless, due to external reasons this natural instinct is so suppressed that a simple reminder cannot refresh it. Therefore, God and His Messengers also dwelled into experimental and corporeal reasons of His existence. Some selected examples of these will be quoted in the following sections.

Since faith in God is so obvious, the Qur’an does not enter into detailed discussion of this subject. It relies only upon a few admonitions and brief gestures because it is illogical to spread discussions on a topic - which is obvious and innate - thereby turning it into a difficult and intangible quagmire.

Anyhow, unless human nature has taken a complete nosedive and is absolutely jumbled, the question of the existence of God appears very clear and beyond all doubts, just as clear as our own being.

Removal Of A Doubt

On this issue a doubt is usually created by saying that if acknowledgement of God is so natural to the human, why is there then so much noise by those who deny and reject Him? This doubt can be addressed in three ways.

1. We have just mentioned in the previous section that this natural attachment sometimes can be suppressed by external factors, such as a flawed education, an excessive indulgence into materialism and a distorted social order. It is mentioned in a Hadith that every child is born on the nature of Islam, and later it is the parents who make him or her a Jew, a Christian or a Magian.

2. Sometimes the extreme exposure and clarity of an object become a reason for its vanishing from sight. The example of Sun and flying fox is quite appropriate. In some supplications, this notion is invoked about God when it is said, “O, the Being that is hidden from His creatures by an intense display.”

Moreover, the true value of a commodity can only be recognized by comparing it to its opposite. If there was no darkness, light could never be appreciated.

In a book called The Innovative Tales, a story is narrated (just to make a key point): All the small fish in a river went to a giant fish and asked her to show them the water about which they had heard a lot. The large fish replied that they should show her the place where there was no water, so that she might show them what water was?

The state of affairs between man and his Creator is very similar. A man had not yet taken one step into the realm of his life that the blessings of God began being showered upon him. When he entered into the domain of life, he found reflections of God in every aspect of his surroundings. The intensity of emanations of His light blinded his vision, and he started doubting His presence to the extent of denial, due to the presence of a veil of laxity. However, just a simple warning can awaken such people.

3. The majority of those who deny God, although they see the signs of His magnificence, and feel that these extraordinary signs cannot come about without an All-Wise Creator, are so engrossed in the physical pleasures of the self that they are not willing to trade those for the rules and regulation of the heavenly law (the Sharia). However, as they are naturally disturbed by the thought of the hereafter and its subsequent punishment, they find refuge in various doubts and misgivings to invalidate their obvious trepidations to deny God, Who has described the state of affairs of such people in the following Verse of the Holy Qur’an:

وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ شُرَكَاءَ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَخْرُصُونَ

“And they do not (really) follow any associates, who call on others besides Allah; they do not follow (anything) but conjectures, and they only lie” (10:66).

On this basis the speeches of the champions of materialists, such as Lenin and Stalin, are on the record claiming that their prime objective was to eliminate religion, since it hindered their approach by restraining them from adopting worldly modes to acquire mundane assets and limiting the corporeal needs. This is the most dangerous group with whom examples, warnings and good tidings do not work.

Therefore, in view of the above facts, the author (Ibn Babway) and his contemporaries avoided discussing the subject relating to the confirmation of God, and instead continued their work with the acknowledgement of this reality. We would have followed their footsteps but the demands of the day compel us to shed some light on this subject.

Although from the dawn of the civilization there have always been some people who are either reluctant or very open in their denial of God, in the present era of scientific and material revolution - which is known as the golden age of new discoveries - society has plunged into spiritual and moral decay. This has resulted in a vicious attack on religious and moral values by the zealots and prompted atheism and materialism among the public by promoting dubious arguments, thus making them walk away from the faith.

However, for those, whose intellectual vision was not completely blocked, the modern scientific and technological achievements are bringing them back to the folds of religion, and strengthening the faith of those who were very ardent in their spiritual quest.

It is heartening to know that the entire scientific community of the world does not support the atheist view. In a recent publication “God is present” almost forty leading American scientists from various disciplines, unequivocally supported the existence of God. It is very important then that this wave of atheism is kept in check with modern scientific approach, so that those who want to live (spiritually), live with a reason and those who die, die with a reason.

Philosophical Approach To God

One should know that there are various routes to prove the existence of God such as the path of the philosophers, religious people, spiritual people, theologians and saints. This present work does not have the capacity to include discussions from all these resources, but some effort would be made to include a little from each school of thought, to remove the veil of doubt from one’s mind.

First Philosophical Argument

Philosophers say that anything that can be sensed by human brain is one of the three (categories). It could be either,

1. Wajib al-Wujood: That for which existence is essential and its extinction is not possible,

or,

2. Mumtan al-Wujood: That for which extinction is essential and existence is not possible,

or,

3. Mumkin al-Wujood: That for which may exist i.e. which is possible or probable

We experience that in the cradle of life, things appear, confirm their existence, stay for a time and then disappear to become extinct. This cycle is repeated over and over again in all domains of life. These things therefore, must belong to one of three categories stated above. They could either be Wajib, Mumtana or Mumkin.

They could not be Wajib or Mumtana since Wajib cannot be extinct and Mumtana can never exist. Naturally then, we have to accept that all of these belong to the third category. Once this possibility is established, the need of a Creator is automatically recognized because both existence and extinction are possible for the Mumkin. They can only come into play when there is a Creator.

There are now four possibilities about this Creator. It may be that -

1. This Mumkin, as a whole might have given itself the existence,

2. Its fraction gave it the dynamism.

3. Mumtana gave it the dress of reality.

4. Wajib al-Wujood was responsible for its physical existence.

The first possibility is naturally incorrect, because it necessitates the presence of a thing before its existence, and then only it can clad itself with a body. Similarly, the second possibility is also redundant because a part cannot be the originator of whole. This also entails the same discrepancy as outlined in the first postulate. The third possibility is also superfluous because irrespective of one being a believer or a non-believer, a logical person would accept that one could not provide to someone else a thing which he does not possess. Therefore, when Mumtana does not exist itself, how it can impart existence to something else?

When the first three assumptions are rejected then there is no escape but to accept the fourth postulate that only a Being, which is independent or Wajib al-Wujood, brought these things into existence. His existence is personal and the rest of the Universe is totally dependent on Him for its existence.

That is why in the Qur’an, God addresses the entire humanity,

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَنتُمُ الْفُقَرَاءُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ

“O Humans, you are but in need of Allah and Allah is free of (the need for) your praise” (35:15).

He is independent and eternal and there is no extinction for Him.

This argument has been put forward in different ways but we have tried to make it very simple. It has been augmented word by word as expressed by our eighth Imam [Imam Ar-Ridha’] (‘a), when he answered a petitioner.

“There was a time when you were a non-entity and then came into existence. You accept that you were not responsible for your own birth, and you are also sure that a person who is similar to you did not create you (Because he is also dependent on someone else for existence). Therefore, you have to accept that your creator is external to your genus, and He is Wajib al-Wujood.”

Second Philosophical Argument

The Universe is Hadith or mortal i.e. it has been created, and the created appears from the domain of non-existence. It is therefore, not eternal. Hence it depends on some outside source for its existence, and this external source is God.

The other aspect of this argument that whatever is created needs a cause, is self-evident, and does not require further logical elaborations. However, its first postulate that the universe is created or not, is definitely a subject of argument. Several logical opinions have been formulated on this issue, and we introduce a few in the following sections.

First Reason That The Universe Is A Creation

There is a continuous change going on in this Universe. The cycle of life and death is common. New stars and galaxies are forming and older stars are collapsing and exploding. Even our own Sun is destined to die within five billion years, and if the present rate of expansion of the Universe is maintained, the system as we know it, will die in the cold barren space. Who is not aware of the fact that there was a time when we were all shrouded by the veil of nothingness, and soon an era is due, which will take us to the same void of extinction.

Our earthly presence, bound by the two voids of nothingness is like the presence of sunlight is bordered by the darkness of previous and the subsequent nights. The glow of the Earth during daytime is calling upon us to note that this gleam is not earth’s own feature but it is a borrowed asset. If it were her own intrinsic sparkle, it would never have vanished from the scene.

Similarly, the struggle between life and death, the continuous emergence and disappearance of things is a plain indication of the fact that the universe owes its existence to an external source, in the same way that we are indebted to someone else, whose existence is the reality in itself. The existence of His Being is as essential as it is for the Sun to be associated with radiation, heat with the temperature, numbers with (either being) even, odd or prime - like 4 must be even, 3 must be odd and 11 must be prime. The Muslims call this Being, whose existence is inherent as Wajib al-Wujood or God, the Almighty. The following Qur’anic Verse points to the same line of argument as discussed above.

كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَكُنتُمْ أَمْوَاتًا فَأَحْيَاكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيكُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ

“How do you deny Allah and you were dead and He gave you life? Again He will cause you to die and again bring you to life, then you shall be brought back to Him” (2:28).

Second Reason That The Universe Is A Creation

Observation and intellect are witness to the fact that everything within the Universe is finite. There is no place or time in the present domain, which has no beginning or end. Day, night, week, month, year, century and a millennium all have their beginning and a ultimate end. Similarly, every other location is also bound by dimension and space. Therefore, all the elements and the compounds in the Universe are finite.

This constraint, when applied to the elements is rational. The same argument can be applied to the compounds, since those are also made by reaction between the elements in varying proportions. If this is true, then the Universe must have its own limits. Hence it should have its beginning. Scientists have now calculated this time period, which is anything between thirteen to fifteen billion years from the present. Then how is it possible when the individual components of the Universe are finite and the Universe itself becomes limitless and eternal?

Third Reason That The Universe Is A Creation

It is logical to say that the second cannot exist before the first, the third before the second and the fourth before the third. You may presume the longest chain of numbers; it cannot continue without the first. If the first is extinct then the whole chain would collapse. Similarly, if the Universe has no beginning, then the whole chain of existence will crumble. The Qur’an points to the same logic,

وَأَحَاطَ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ وَأَحْصَىٰ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عَدَدًا

“… and He encompasses what is with them and He records the number of all things” (72:28).

Fourth Reason That The Universe Is A Creation

This argument has a few preliminaries.

1. There are two types of things that exist in nature – Johar, are those which are self-supporting i.e. they do not require any aide to demonstrate their presence. They are visibly present e.g. trees, water, stones etc and Arz i.e. those things which are not self-evident but need other objects to manifest their presence, e.g. colour, smell and taste etc

2. No Johar is without Arz, since all Jawahars (plural of Johar) possess some sort of form and dimension. Form and dimension are Arz. Also, all Jawahars have some kind of motion and this movement is Arz. Consequently, no Johar is free of Arz.

3. Arz is Hadith – a created thing, because it becomes extinct after it is born.

4. A thing, which cannot free itself from Arz must itself be Hadith, because if it is eternal (no beginning and no end), then Arz should also be eternal because two complimentary things that are indispensable of each other must have the same rules of compliance. If not, it will involve time differentials and this is impossible. As the mortality of Arz is already recognized, Johar must also be Hadith.

On the basis of these four preliminaries, we shall now argue that the Universe is not free from one of the two possibilities, i.e. it is either Johar or Arz. Since Johar and Arz are both Hadith, therefore, Universe must be Hadith. It has also been proven that for mortals, we must need a Creator and if that person is also mortal then we have to search for another one and this chain must end at the Being, which is Wajib al-Wujood or the Eternal One. And, that is God. Otherwise, we will be carrying on the search in an unending circle or seeking a continuous chain of events, which is impossible. Therefore, the first possibility is correct.

Many physicists, who are opposed to the concept of God, have now floated an idea that creation of the Universe does not require a cause. The champion of this ideology is Stephen Hawking, Professor of Physics, at the University of Cambridge. They borrowed the “Uncertainty Principle” from Heisenberg to advance their own hypothesis. This principle states that if we bounce a photon off a particle in order to establish its position, the impact will change the particle’s momentum. Thus, an accurate measurement of both position and momentum simultaneously, is impossible.

From this they argue that there is nothing that ever had zero energy. So, the Universe could have come into existence spontaneously when its energy state momentarily flickered away from zero. Heisenberg himself pointed out that uncertainty in time measurements destroys common sense motion of cause and effect, which perhaps makes the idea of something appearing from nothing more plausible.

There are some inherent problems with this concept. It is true that the position and moment of an electron cannot be determined by us at the same time, because our senses have a limit. Therefore, we cannot develop mathematics for the quantum world in a manner we have treated Newtonian Physics. However, this uncertainty does not bind God, because He has the perfect knowledge of everything, even before its creation. He therefore, does not need the help of any rules of the science of probability to bail Him out.

Again, Hawking and his associates claim that the flickering of energy from zero had caused the Universe to come into being. Good lord! What was that then, whose energy had flickered when there was nothing present? Let me tell you; they believe that in the beginning, the Universe was present as a singularity, which exploded as its energy flickered from zero to some other probable value. We have returned to the same point after having taken three hundred and sixty degrees turn to question that from where did this singularity came about, and what made that particular probability to initiate the Universe as we see it today? Their only answer to this query has been that it was an accident.

Again, to supplement his reasoning Hawking says that black holes must emit a form of radiation, which results from the apparently empty space gaining some energy under the Uncertainty Principle. This is converted into a pair of short-lived particles, one of ordinary matter and the other of antimatter that would annihilate each other in the moment after creation. Near the event horizon of the black hole however, one can float away while the other particle is swallowed up by the black hole. The gradual loss of energy carried by these particles will eventually lead to the complete evaporation of the black hole. This adds plausibility to the argument that the Universe created itself from nothing.

In this theory Hawking makes a supposition that the space is completely empty, which is a pure conjecture. I remember the saying of Amir Al-Mu’minin, which tells that every minute hole in the space is full of millions of God’s creatures. Therefore, the interaction of some other particles presents in the so-called empty space that are hitherto undetected by the scientists, might lead to Hawking’s Radiations. This is not a wishful thinking, as Physicists still believe in the presence of Higgs Boson, even though they have not found it yet, despite massive investment in the particle accelerators.

Moreover, the opportunity provided by the black holes to let one kind of particle to escape, while the other is absorbed might be a design by God for the management of the Universe. Otherwise, he should have told us why the black hole is selective about one kind of particle letting it escape, even though it is known that the drag of black hole is so great that even light cannot escape from its gravitational pull.

Secondly, Hawking claims that those radiations gain energy under the Uncertainty Principle, which is again a pure conjecture. I have already mentioned that the Uncertainty Principle applies to us, the observers, due to our lack of mathematical tools at the quantum level, and not to the Creator of those particles. One of the greatest twentieth century scientists, Einstein was very much against quantum mechanics due to this very reason.

Recently astronomers have found spiral galaxies that are too perfect, not fitting with the theories that had been put forward for the evolution of the Universe. These galaxies are called pristine galaxies, and according to the scientists they are situated at completely the wrong place. For cosmologists, they are therefore becoming kind of a mystery, because the true life-story of these galaxies eludes them. As a result, they have to start from scratch to develop new theories.

It is important for us to know how theoretical physicists’ work. Information is provided by the astronomers about the galaxies and stars along with their positions in the sky. Mathematicians then develop a viable theoretical model to supplement their findings. This means that their mathematical models are only viable as long as no new information has reached them. Sometimes one set of new information can destroy the work of a lifetime.

Jim Peebles, a theoretical physicist at the University of Princeton in America accepts that the standard model developed about the evolution of galaxies does not work for the pristine galaxies. It suggests that the galaxies are more complicated and cosmologists do not understand how they are formed. This proposes that the galactic past is inscrutably messy and there is lack of understanding about their formation.

Islam is not worried about the scientific discoveries, as it advocates no limits for human endeavours. However, I feel sorry when these great minds explore the wonders of the Universe but draw wrong conclusions from their discoveries and deny God. I ask them to tell me honestly that when even the perception of this Cosmos requires the highest degree of knowledge and a lifelong experience, how could its Creation come about on its own from barren matter, which is totally devoid of intelligence?

Logic tells us that it requires absolute intelligence to initiate such a task as Creation, and that intelligence is called God. Please read the following extract from the New Scientist (7th May, 2011) and enjoy,

“Even if we created a second genesis in the laboratory, it will not tell us how life began on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago”

If they cannot tell us what happened 3.8 billion years ago, then how they can enlighten us with certainty about an event that took place almost 13.7 billion years ago?

Fifth Reason That The Universe Is A Creation

All measurements and numbers are limited. The number of heavenly bodies and the fundamental particles of matter are confined within certain limits. Earth’s orbit round the Sun is of a specific duration. The sequence of cause and effect is also inside explicit confines. Likewise, the other instruments of nature ought to have a beginning too, as it is unthinkable to backtrack its origins in an unending, limitless manner.

A Western philosopher writes on page 631 Volume 2 of his book, History of Modern Philosophy,

“Before the time when transformations started taking place, there must have been an Eternal Being who was not prone to change within His self and at that time His substance and personality were the same.”

René Descartes says:

“I cannot imagine anyone other than God, whose substance is His Persona as a compulsion.”

These are the opinions of the Western philosophers, and I wonder about certain Muslim scholars who, despite accepting Universe as a created being (Hadith) consider it as a timeless species and equate it with God, for perpetuity. Species, as an entity can only manifest itself in a form and that form is Hadith. Therefore, to pronounce species as a perpetual entity is an illogical hypothesis.

Our Imams (‘a) have warned people, while refuting this ideology,

“How could God be the Creator of a thing that shared eternity with Him.”

Therefore, in the light of these facts an intellectual would agree without any squabble, the statement of our Imams,

“God existed and nothing shared His eternity with Him.”

Hence most intellectuals and learned scholars agree on the Universe being a created entity. Just as Shahrastani wrote in Nihayat Al-Aqdam, and many great minds before Islam like Plato, Aristotle, the Biblical prophets and many other Saints had concurred. Allama Al-Majlisi writes in Risalat al-Itiqadia,

“It is necessary to believe that the Universe is a created being (Hadith) and on this issue all nations and religions agree, and in this connection many reliable reports are available.”

However, for further satisfaction reference could be made to “Kitab Irtibat Al-Insan”, printed and published in Iran. It points out that when it has been proven that the Universe is Hadith then a Being whose substance is His Persona is required to initiate the entire process of existence of the Universe. This is the One, whom we name God.

Theological Approach To God

Although, theologians have applied different methodologies to address this issue, none is a better argument than referring to the application of principle of a cause and effect to the Creator and His creatures. This is such an irrefutable approach as it is appreciated by not only the intellectuals, but a person of average ability could also benefit from it due to its natural charm.

That is why when a Bedouin was asked as to how he recognised his Lord, he immediately replied that if the droppings of a camel or footprints of a person in a given direction can point to a camel or that a man having walked that way, then the space - full of constellations, and earth decorated with mountains and valleys must indicate to the presence of an all-Knowing Creator.

Commander of the Faithful offered the same argument with few alterations,

“Minor dropping of a camel, dung of a donkey and foot prints of man can point to these objects, then how come the subtlety of the space and density of the Earth cannot point to the presence of an all knowing and watchful God.”

It is the results of this approach that when the same question was asked to an old lady, who was spinning her wheel, as to how she recognised God, she immediately replied that her spinning wheel turns only when she gives it a twirl and stops when she does not apply any force. If this is true for a spinning wheel that it cannot perform without a spinner, then how the whole Universe could work without a manager? When the Prophet heard about her approach, he was very happy. He asked his companions to follow the old lady’s approach to religion i.e. accept it with a reason that is amazingly simple, like her reasoning.

Allama Al-Hilli says that it is the consensus of Shi’a school of thought that arbitrary belief in the principles of religion is not permissible. A logical understanding of matters such as the Being of God, His attributes, Prophethood, Imamate and Resurrection is required of all believers.

Qur’anic Approach Supporting The Theological Methodology

As logical interpretations and intellectual paradigms are not easy for a layman to appreciate, it is important that an approach is devised, which is easy for an average person to recognize. Just like the arguments presented in previous section are associated with instances that are of common occurrence, God has also adopted a similar methodology quite frequently in the Qur’an. We present few Verses from the Holy Book.

إِنَّ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ وَالْفُلْكِ الَّتِي تَجْرِي فِي الْبَحْرِ بِمَا يَنفَعُ النَّاسَ وَمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مِن مَّاءٍ فَأَحْيَا بِهِ الْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا وَبَثَّ فِيهَا مِن كُلِّ دَابَّةٍ وَتَصْرِيفِ الرِّيَاحِ وَالسَّحَابِ الْمُسَخَّرِ بَيْنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ

“Certainly, in the creation of Heaven and Earth and alternation of day and night, and those ships laden with goods that sail in the seas to benefit humanity, and water that was sent down from the space that revived the Earth after her death, and extended all kinds of animals and (life forms) on it and the movements of winds and the clouds, between Earth and the Sky, are numerous signs for the people who understand” (2:164).

In these Verses, the Architect of the Universe has mentioned various signs of His design. This was to give a push to the human mind whose strength is to be able to identify the cause of a major event by investigating the traces of its effects. If he could find the origins of a fire by examining the soot particle buried under tons of clay, or could describe a writer by looking at a specimen of his writing, then there is no reason why he would not be able to find the originator of the Universe by looking at the relevant signs of His creation.

If man - due to his observation and instinct – is convinced that a house cannot be constructed without a worker and a designer; a loaf of bread cannot bake itself without the necessary equipment and its operator, then how can the most complex system of the Universe, which contains millions of stars more massive than our Sun be functioning without an intelligent mind?

How did the variety of wildlife, whose study has produced huge scientific data that helped us mimic them for some great inventions, come to life itself from nowhere? The answer to this question will be “no – it cannot be” – for any rational minded person.

It is therefore, astonishing to note how the Lord of the Universe is disobeyed and refused, when millions of His signs are there to portray His presence. God addresses humanity through another Qur’anic Verse:

هُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ الشَّمْسَ ضِيَاءً وَالْقَمَرَ نُورًا وَقَدَّرَهُ مَنَازِلَ لِتَعْلَمُوا عَدَدَ السِّنِينَ وَالْحِسَابَ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ ذَٰلِكَ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ يُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ

“It is He (the same God), who made the Sun as a source of light and the Moon as a reflector, and appointed stations for its orbit so that you might set the standards of time. God has created all these things with justification. He makes His signs lucid for those who understand” (10:5).

Once again God has used His creation as evidence to acknowledge His presence. At another juncture He says:

اللَّهُ الَّذِي رَفَعَ السَّمَاوَاتِ بِغَيْرِ عَمَدٍ تَرَوْنَهَا ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ يُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُم بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّكُمْ تُوقِنُونَ ‎

“He is the same Lord, who raised the firmaments without any visible pillars. His authority then prevailed over the Empyrean [nerve centre of the Universe] and then constrained Sun and the Moon to perform for a given period. He plans the working [of the Universe] and clarifies His signs, so that you may firmly believe about your meeting with your Lord” (13:2).

In this Verse, God again uses the signs of His creation to help recognize His Being. At another place He states:

وَهُوَ الَّذِي مَدَّ الْأَرْضَ وَجَعَلَ فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ وَأَنْهَارًا وَمِن كُلِّ الثَّمَرَاتِ جَعَلَ فِيهَا زَوْجَيْنِ اثْنَيْنِ يُغْشِي اللَّيْلَ النَّهَارَ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

“He is the one who has spread the Earth and then installed huge mountains and rivers on it and created fruits each of two types. He is the one who covers day with the night. In it are signs for those who contemplate” (13:3).

In this Verse too, God has invited people to recognize Him through His creation. At another occasion He says:

وَفِي الْأَرْضِ قِطَعٌ مُّتَجَاوِرَاتٌ وَجَنَّاتٌ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ وَزَرْعٌ وَنَخِيلٌ صِنْوَانٌ وَغَيْرُ صِنْوَانٍ يُسْقَىٰ بِمَاءٍ وَاحِدٍ وَنُفَضِّلُ بَعْضَهَا عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ فِي الْأُكُلِ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ

“There are various portions of land side by side. The vineyards, cornfields and dates, all of them growing singularly or as a collection of trees from a solitary root, which are supplied with the same water, yet We give their fruits preference over each other. Certainly, in it are signs for the people of intellect” (13:4).

Here God the Almighty has shown another perfect example of His creativity that the land and the water are the same, yet the tastes of fruits growing in each other’s environs taste differently, when the biology of the trees is not far apart. What is the answer for those who deny God? They can bring their arguments if they are truthful.

A Useful Tale

There is a lovely tale mentioned in various books giving a moral similar to that given in previous section. It is narrated that once a scholar requested God to give Him an argument against the philosophers, such that it could not be refuted by any of them. After this supplication, the scholar went to sleep and saw a person reciting the following Verse of the Qur’an in his dream.

وَهُوَ الَّذِي مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ هَٰذَا عَذْبٌ فُرَاتٌ وَهَٰذَا مِلْحٌ أُجَاجٌ وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَهُمَا بَرْزَخًا وَحِجْرًا مَّحْجُورًا

“God has created two streams of water, one having the sweet and the other salty taste. Both of these stream flow side by side with a barrier in between, but they do not exceed each other” (25:53).

The physicists and naturalists should tell us why the saline water of seas does not mix with the fresh water of rivers against the laws of physics? Could it be anything, other than the resolve and will of God?

Further Reinforcement Of This Methodology Through Imams

Our Imams (‘a) also chose a similar approach to educate people about this issue owing to simplicity of the technique. Therefore, Imam Ali (‘a) said,

“Argument is presented about God on the basis of His creations and inventions, and the application of intellect and indulgence helps gaining faith in Him, while deliberation and pondering clarifies reasoning about Him. He is renowned for His signs and prominent for His radiant point of view.”

Imam (‘a) further elaborates,

“When you look at the stars you will find them witness to His creation, because He has made them into stars in the first place?”

An atheist once asked Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) to give his rationale for God’s existence. Imam replied that all the natural objects point to a Creator.

“Don’t you deliberate, that when you see a beautifully constructed house, you accept that someone must have made it, although you might not be a witness to its construction. Who can dispute a simple fact that when an ordinary house needs an architect for its existence, then how the Universe with all its components, which has amazed the greatest minds of all times, can become a reality without a Maker?”

It is mentioned in Usul Al-Kafi and Bihar that once Abu Shakir Desani came to meet with Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) and requested him to guide him towards God. Imam enquired him about his name. Instead of answering the Imam, Desani left the meeting. His followers asked him the reason for not giving his name. He replied that had he given his true name Abdullah (meaning servant of God) to the Imam then he would have asked him about the God, whose Servant he was? What would he answer then? They said that he should go to him again with a condition that he did not ask his name. So, he went to the Imam again and stated his condition.

Imam asked him to sit down. Few minutes later, a child came with an egg in his hand. Imam asked the child to leave the egg with him. He took the egg and said,

“O Desani, this egg is like a hidden fort. It has a thick shell and underneath is a thin membrane, below that membrane are chambers of molten gold and silver and they do not intermix. The egg stays in the same state. No information is brought out from an insider to tell us as to what kind of transformational steps it has undergone inside the chambers nor has any infiltrator reached inside it to tell what kind of damage has been done inside. No one knows if a male or a female chick is inside. Suddenly it will burst open one day and a beautiful chicken will come out from within. What is your opinion then about the fact that it needed an organiser to do all that?”

Desani kept quiet for a moment. Then said that he would bear witness that there is no god but God, Who has no partners and that Muhammad is His Messenger, and declared that he is free from his previous faith.

A Strange Tale

In this respect, an extraordinary tale is recorded in various reliable books, which is being reproduced here due to its significance (tales are mostly used as a tool in the Eastern communities to make a key point for the readers to understand a phenomenon).

A king was lurking at the borderlines of belief and disbelief in God. He had a minister, who was wise, intelligent and God fearing. When he realized the state of mind of his King, he decided to help to bring the King out of this dilemma.

After careful consideration, an excellent scheme came to his mind. He silently gathered a workforce of Cartesians and asked them to construct a palace in a desolate place away from the city. He created a network of canals and developed a charming garden around the palace. When the work was complete, he asked the workforce to leave the site. He then invited the King to visit the site.

When the King saw this palace erected in a desolate place along with its amenities, he wondered and asked the minister about the ownership of the palace. The minister grabbed the opportunity and said that it had been built on its own. The King in a convulsion of surprise asked the minister, did the house arrange its own construction? If so, how was it possible?

The minister with a breath of confidence replied that a strange wind blew, which gathered the bricks, while, the mortar was provided in a similar fashion. Then somehow a brick managed to lie on top of the other brick and the process gathered pace. Doors and windows came out of nowhere and managed to find their respective positions. Thus, the house was completed. The garden also appeared out of a similar chance, when with good fortune a seed arranged itself to arrive from some distant place and be seeded. The surface of earth smoothed itself to allow this seed to germinate while irrigated with the water coming from the canals.

The King became furious when he heard this answer. He asked the minister in a sharp tone that how dare he play a joke with him? The minister with utmost respect asked that if such an ordinary house cannot build itself, then how could the entire Universe come into existence without a maker? King’s vision thus cleared. He willingly accepted the existence of God and thanked his minister.

Amir Al-Mu’minin Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) has pointed to the same conclusion in one of his sermons recorded in Nahj al-Balagha,

“How is it possible for a house to be there without its designer or any living thing to exist without life?”

Imam Ali further says,

“I have recognized God from the breach of my resolve. I decide firmly (to do something) but my effort fails to mature. I have learnt from my experience that there is someone else, not me, Who manages my task”

On another occasion, he was asked a reason for believing in the existence of God. He gave very concise answer and said that three things convinced him of the existence of God,

• Variation in the state of things

• Organs deteriorating in living beings

• Breach of resolve

The summary of this discussion is that no right-minded person who sees an edifice, can deny its Creator, or no person who buys a book can say that it has no author and that the words have appeared from nowhere.

An Interesting Dialogue With An Atheist

Author of the paper “Religion and Sharia” has quoted his fascinating dialogue with an atheist. Since it is linked to our topic therefore, we relate it for our readers.

“Once (I was) talking to a person who had doubts about the existence of God, and who wanted to discuss the issue with me, I took a piece of paper out of my pocket and asked him that if I say that this piece of paper has words inscribed on it, which were not written by anyone; would you agree to my statement? He said that he would disagree with that statement.

I said that if I make the same statement about my watch or the fountain pen that it has not been manufactured by any craftsman or about a car, which is moving on the road that it has neither been designed nor assembled by anyone; nor its movements are controlled by any person; instead, it has come to exist on its own, would you then agree to this account? The gentleman replied that he would disagree with all the quotes.

I replied to him that he could understand the invalidity of the entire scenario that I had put forth to him, yet he failed to apply the same principles to the more complex structures that exist around us, such as the Sun, Moon and the Stars and even more - the structure of a human being, his heart, lungs, eyes and the brain.

Is it not a foregone conclusion to you that no writing could appear without a scriber, no pen can take shape without a designer and no car could exist without a manufacturer? By the same rationale, the thesis that the Universe along with its associates and various forms of life on the Earth and beyond has been fashioned by a Creator is a foregone conclusion as well. Therefore, further argument on this issue was a sign of flaw in one’s vision and intellect.”

Methodology Of Towering And Cognizant Personalities

If we go through the sermons and speeches of the Imams (‘a), we would find that the approach adopted in the previous sections serves as a basic tutorial for the students of this category, which is mainly the starting point of the Qur’an. This approach can put an end to the tone of the antagonists. It could convince the abjurers.

However, if one thinks that this approach could provide with the true taste of God’s ma’rifah or understanding, and enhance the radiance of one’s belief, then it is no more than puerile thinking.

A God whose proof of existence depends upon our reasoning would be subservient to His creature’s arguments. He is way above this kind of approach. What a lacklustre approach it would be for a student who having spent his life in studying the basics of this subject, did not make an effort to reach the impervious stage, where he could understand that God Himself is a reason for Himself, or that God should be known only through God.

That is why the true guardians of religion always wanted their followers to advance stage by stage to the point where they themselves were standing in terms of God’s ma’rifah. Their approach is to know God through God instead of making the creatures a sign of His recognition. They should identify the creation through their Lord. This is the way they have chosen to teach those aspiring for perfection in their ma’rifah.

Thus, Imam Ali (‘a) says in Du’a as-Sabah,

“O! Ye the Magnificent, Who is witness to Himself, and completely free from any kind of likeness to His creatures.”

The sophisticated statement of Imam Al-Husayn (‘a) in Du’a Arafah is also a factual illustration of the reality. This has been quoted earlier and it tells us that how we can argue about the being of God through things that owe their existence to Him.

Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin (‘a) states in Du’a Abu Hamza Ath-Thumali,

“O! My Lord, guide me to Your identity. Had You not been present, I would not have known Yourself”

A study of historical treatise reveals that some of Imams’ followers stood close in proximity to their station, as far as the true understanding of God was concerned. It has been mentioned on the authority of Mansoor Ibn Hazim in Usul Al-Kafi that he spoke to Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) regarding his debate with a group of opponents. He told the Imam that he had proposed to the opponents that the being of God is outside this statement that He should be identified through His subjects. On the contrary, it is the creatures that should get known through Him. Imam was delighted at this reply and said words of appreciation for him.

These exalted people wanted to take their followers to the heights of ma’rifah of God that had been stated by Imam Ali (‘a). It is mentioned in Usul Al-Kafi:

Know your God through God, the Prophet from the acts of his Prophethood and Ul al-‘Amr (people of authority that are caretakers of the Prophetic legacy, such as Islamic legal, social and spiritual responsibility - who are appointed by God but may not necessarily be political leaders) from their promotion of good conduct.

The question of how this station can be achieved has been described by a number of religious scholars. This is beyond the scope of this commentary, but readers can refer to numerous books of Ilm Al-Akhlaq (character building) and enhance their experience.

Revocation Of Some Doubts Created By The Atheists

So far as belief of God is concerned, we have phrased materialistic and atheist ideology, which outlines it as an episode of uncertainty or chance. This is due to their lack of wisdom when exposed to a logical critique. God has revealed in the Qur’an,

وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلَّا ظَنًّا إِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا

“And most of them do not follow (anything) but conjecture; surely conjecture will not avail aught against the truth” (10:36).

Although the verdict of Qur’an is the last word for those who are seeking truth, we have decided to rebut the arguments, which the atheists use to deny the existence of God. We shall first quote their objections and then invalidate those claims completely to conclude the discussion.

First Objection

This doubt is the cornerstone of the atheists’ palace of misgivings. According to this idea, anything, which cannot be perceived through our five senses, does not actually exist. And, because God does not fit within the perception of these senses, He does not exist.

If a little thought is spent on this objection, the triviality of this line of argument can be shown. It does not require any philosophical approach to disprove this. It is an accepted principle of logic that the physical absence of something cannot be a piece of evidence for its non-existence. One does not have to go far to test this truth. Within human existence itself there are many testimonies to refute this argument. For example, spirit, intelligence, memory, taste, love, hatred, animosity, hunger and thirst can all be felt with inner senses only, instead of through external and physical sensations.

The nature of the senses, on which we depend so much, itself cannot be shown in the flesh. We are unable to say that this is sight or that is hunger, in material form. Yet, no sensible person would deny that they exist. That is why the Prophet said that whosoever recognised his own being had recognised God.

It is a pity that despite numerous scientific breakthroughs, the atheist community would always make an incorrect conclusion from the available facts. When they see great biological similarity between living things, instead of recognising that their Creator is one through such observation, they argue that species evolved from one into another under the influence of natural processes.

Recently a paper has been published in the New Scientist (9th April, 2005; page 27) claiming some great achievements of evolution, without any understanding of the process or its methodology:

“The methods of evolution are blind, brutish and aimless, yet it has fashioned some of the most exquisite machines in the known Universe. It stumbles across a truly stunning innovation that rewrites the rules of life.”

This is an unwise statement from the great minds of the present scientific era, due to their lack of ma’rifah of God. It is an outcome of Christian ideology that had prevailed for at least two millennia, in which God was portrayed as a family entity. When they could not find an old bearded person sitting in a remote nebular laboratory chiselling out different creatures, it seemed easier to accept nature as their unnamed God who had done all this work for them.

This disregard and obliviousness of God had been reflected upon in the Qur’an, which says:

نَسُوا اللَّهَ فَنَسِيَهُم

“They have forsaken God and God has forsaken their being for them” (9:67).

Had they perceived God through Islam, they would not have fallen in this trap. In the Islamic understanding there is no conflict between scientific exploration and religious beliefs, since God has invited humanity through the Qur’an to go and search how God initiated the Universe and spread life on Earth.

Moreover, God of Islam is not an inventor who needs experimentation to build His ability through trial and errors. The entire material and spiritual realm along with its limitations, is within His knowledge. He knew what elements had to be created and what kinds of laws were required to put the process in place. In other words, His instructions i.e. His will is embedded within every particle of matter that had appeared in the Universe. Each particle knew exactly what it was supposed to be doing.

This rationale makes the entire process of creation transparent to the inquisitive minds, without need for any unrealistic suppositions. At this stage the words evolution and creation are only semantics, since an invisible hand bound by certain laws guides each unseen process.

The fact of the matter is that human knowledge is limited in nature by its Creator. Therefore, many secrets of the great sea of the Universe are still hidden from him.

In any case, man has not discovered things that entered the premises of his understanding, in one go. It required a long process of observations and trials. Sometimes accidental events led to unearthing of those secrets. Consider for example the role of electrical forces in life process. Who would have known, before its discovery that a thing called electricity had a meaningful role in the Universe? Similarly, magnetism, due to its manifestation and characteristics is a real force but nobody ever saw magnetism in flesh and blood. Is there any rational person who could see the manifestations of these forces and still deny their existence? In the past when the idea of ether was floated, was there anyone who had claimed to have a visual appreciation of this entity?

Today when the science is making discoveries on new frontiers, the idea of dark energy has been proposed to explain the ever-accelerating expansion of the Universe. Who could claim to have seen this mysterious force? The answer is no one. Yet, we have accepted this idea because it offered a rationale to explain an ongoing process. Is it then not possible that in this Universe there might be many more things, which are presently not apparent to our senses, but actually exist? When we admit our inability in this respect then there is no rationale to deny the existence of God, as numerous signs of His existence are scattered around us.

The Second Objection

There was a considerable difference of opinion between the philosophers and the early advocates of atheism, who had their own views. They are now however, unanimous that the origin of all things on Earth and the Universe at large is due to two entities - matter and motion, both of which are eternal.

In the beginning, there was nothing physical as we see today. The space was full of material particles and a movement was initiated within it, which culminated in the formation of stars and galaxies, including various life forms on the earth. A description of this process is not the subject matter for this commentary; however, we can say that the proponents of this group claim matter to be the essence of Universe. So, they deny the existence of God. This way of thinking is unacceptable due to following reasons.

First Reason

Both philosophers and atheists agree that matter has neither consciousness nor intellect, nor feelings nor life. Our observations however, confirm that there are millions of things around us, which possess these attributes.

It is a confirmed understanding among the intellectuals that a being, which is devoid of an attribute, cannot pass that attribute to anything else. So, if matter is the essence of the Universe, which does not possess consciousness, intellect or motion, then what would the source of that consciousness and life in the creation itself? The scientists have made countless efforts to answer this question but they have failed yet to provide a convincing answer.

Second Reason

It is an established fact of Science that a stationary object cannot move, unless an external force is applied (Newton’s first law of motion). Therefore, who was responsible for that initial motion which is proposed to be a source for creation as proposed by the materialistic school? They have recently proposed that at quantum level the happening of an event depends on its associated probability. The question that arises then is what trigger made that particular probability to start the event of creation?

Their only answer to this question is that it happened by chance. Their entire thesis that an event at quantum level is dependent on probability, is baseless for an all-wise Creator, who can visualise everything prior to its coming into existence at the quantum level. This is a major fault with this proposition as it they cannot provide a satisfactory answer to such a query. The Qur’an has already mentioned the state of mind of these people by announcing:

وَمَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَإِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا

“And they have no knowledge of it; they do not follow anything but conjecture, and surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all” (53:28).

No verdict is acceptable without its proof. Therefore, the supporters of this view should come forward and verify the statements through an intellectual discourse that shows that matter by itself is eternal, it cannot be destroyed, it has the capacity to create ordinary life and then to fashion an intelligent being from it, on its own.

Do the atheists know its reality? The Qur’an says: no, they do not, and even the scientists supporting them cannot rescue them from this quagmire. What is left now with the atheists, is nothing but a fist full of conjectures and speculative thoughts, for which they cannot bring any viable proof until the Day of Judgment?

In view of these realities, we have to accept the presence of an eternal, living, powerful and all-knowing God, Whose attributes are not external to His being. The entire Universe is within His grasp, as He says:

تَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ

“Blessed is the God Who has command over all domains” (7:54).

This is why Islam states without any reservation or hesitation that Allah created life and death and its instruments. They obey His commands.

Third Reason

The basis of ambiguity with this proposition is that matter is considered to be eternal, but the irrefutable line of reasoning has confirmed that it is not so. In fact, it is a created entity like many other things around us. We provide a few arguments to support our case.

First Argument

Physicists and geologists both accept that the changes and variations seen in the material world are Hadith i.e. the existence of animal and botanical species had a beginning. They came to life after a considerable period following the beginning of the Cosmos.

If activity or motion within matter itself is a cause of these changes as suggested by this school of thought, then the effect i.e. animal and vegetable kingdoms should also be eternal. This break in the chain of cause and effect is intellectually impossible. How is it possible that the cause is eternal while the effect is time-bound?

If somebody made a case that a long waiting period was necessary for the effect to gain a potential or ability to manifest in material form, then an objection can be levelled against this proposal as well. This is to say that if the cause of the “capability” is also an external matter that had to pre-exist in order for the manifestation to appear in a material form, then why didn’t this capability exist before the time of the matter’s corporal existence in the Cosmos?

If this query is answered by saying that the time gap allowed matter to gain capability (an external entity) by the matter exercising its own will and desire, then one has to admit that matter had the consciousness and intellect to select a proper time for the entities to appear. If this premise is true, then it negates the entire thesis of materialist arguments which state that matter does not possess any consciousness or intellect.

This discussion can give only one meaningful answer that there was a time when there was no matter or its dependent variations or diversity. It was the One Omnipotent God who brought them out of the veils of non-existence into the realm of existence

Second Argument

There is no entity in the Cosmos, which is more prone to change than matter itself. It is a well-known fact that matter does not possess mind, jurisdiction or judgment. Therefore, it is not possible to call these changes as manifestations of its mind. Thus, we have to accept the presence of an eternal and all-knowing Being, who allows the changes to continually take place within the matter by His will and judgment. Thus, an entity, which undergoes variation, must be mortal, rather than eternal.

Third Argument

As a rule, we know that an entity, which is eternal in its being, is not susceptible to change. Change is caused by the admission of a foreign entity within a being. It is evident that such access cannot be available for an eternal being. By the same rationale, the matter that is noted to undergo plentiful change can only be Hadith (mortal). God has thus addressed the humanity through the Holy Qur’an:

يَا أَيُّهَا الْإِنسَانُ مَا غَرَّكَ بِرَبِّكَ الْكَرِيمِ

“O mankind, what has deceived you concerning your Lord, the Generous” (82:6).

الَّذِي خَلَقَكَ فَسَوَّاكَ فَعَدَلَكَ

“Who created you, proportioned you, and balanced you?” (82:7).

فِي أَيِّ صُورَةٍ مَّا شَاءَ رَكَّبَكَ

“In whatever form He willed has He assembled you” (82:8).

Fourth Argument

Man in this Universe is superior to all beings in awareness, consideration, intellect and technology. Yet, he cannot produce even a small live mosquito, bringing it to life by producing raw materials needed for this production, on his own. Here the example of Dolly (the cloned sheep) cannot be used because cloning is a natural process, which is more common in the plants. It involves growing the cells of a plant in a tissue culture. Then some pieces of the tissue are removed from the parent plant and transferred into a culture tube containing nutrient agar. The transferred cells divide and form explants, which can eventually be grown in compost.

Scientists have managed to copy and apply this natural process to the animal kingdom. They were able to produce an animal by placing processed tissue cells in the uterus of the animal so as to continue with the natural growth into the foetal form of sheep. This is not creation. This is copying of an already existing system after prolonged period of study and experimentation.

Anyhow, the creation of a mosquito is a far-fetched cry. Even the formation of a single cell of a primitive life form is beyond human capabilities. Some scientists have been heard to claim that they have prepared the blue prints of such a cell, but were their experiments successful? This has not yet been revealed. The long silence in their camps appears to be suggestive of failure.

If man with such superior faculties is unable to create a mosquito, then how can it be believed that dead and barren matter would be able give rise to a wide variety of life forms prevalent upon the earth. We, therefore, have to admit to the mortality and limited capabilities of matter. In this context, the Holy Qur’an has posed a question to the intellect of human community,

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ

“Do the people come into existence without a creator or are they the one who have created [the other modes of life]” (52:35).

Fifth Argument

The intellectuals agree that the feasible (mumkin Al-Wujood) is less significant when compared with eternal (wajib Al-Wujood). Therefore, mumkin must be less in quality, when evaluated against the features of wajib. However, if matter is accepted to be wajib, then the rule seems to be overturned because matter did not have a glimpse of consciousness and intent as compared to the various life forms scattered across the earth. Is it then possible to suggest that the creature is superior to the Creator or a beneficiary is greater than the munificent? Can intellect agree to such display of irrationality?

In the light of the above arguments, it has been proved beyond doubt that the notion of matter being eternal and the originator of the Universe is an absurd idea.

Surprise

Strangely, at this juncture the atheists have forgotten their long-loved principle that they would not accept any event unless they have witnessed it. They can be asked if they have witnessed the primordial matter and the movement that occurred within it?

If their answer to this query is that although they did not witness the primordial matter and inherent movement, they had observed the signatures of such events and deduced therefrom that Creation is the effect of this cause, then our response would be to say to them that by the same argument, through the observations of features of the creation that are beyond our comprehension, we have been induced to believe that their existence is due to presence of a Being which is all-encompassing in knowledge, intellect, wisdom, life and other superlative traits.

If, they declare, as many of the present-day atheists and their associates admit, that all these characteristics are present within the matter itself, then the whole discussion is concluded, since there is no gap between their and our thinking. The only difference is that of semantics. The one whom we call God, they call it matter.

Another Objection And Its Reply

When proving that the dead and barren matter cannot be responsible for creating such a wonderful universe tightens the net against the atheists, they come up with another cock and bull story (like a person who is drowning and would not hesitate to cling to a straw to save his life). They hypothesize that there is no initiator for this Cosmos, neither matter nor God, instead it has a fortuitous existence.

Listening to such a bizarre postulation reminds one Arabic proverb, which is quite befitting for them. It says - he ran away from the rain to find refuge under a waterfall. These people unfortunately abandoned their original approach in favour of something else, which had more problems than their previous conjectures. Their inference is unacceptable due to following reason:

Firstly, the idea is basically childish. It suggests that an act can be performed without an actor or an outcome can be observed without a cause. It is as impractical as a suggestion that one plus one is equal to three. Any person who has a little imagination would not accept such a suggestion.

Secondly, the word ‘chance’, if considered in its well-known form, means the accomplishment of an act or the result of an operation, which was carried out by its originator without any preconceived idea. Those who propose that the dead and senseless matter is responsible for the beginning of everything, initiate these meanings. Yet, when the above-mentioned objections are raised against them, they adopt the line that it all began by chance.

This last ditch-effort by them is also erroneous because an act performed by chance is basically chaotic and it is devoid of sophisticated formulations and intricate designs. However, the Universe is full of balance and complexity that can make greatest of philosophers and scientists wonder with awe. That is why many great thinkers and scientists, after examining the intricacies and sophistications of the intelligent world have converted to the belief in one Omnipotent God. Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) has used this proportion and design in the Universe, as a reason for a knowledgeable God. Talking to one of his disciples Mufazzal, he said,

“The foremost argument, ahead of any other line of reasoning for the existence of God is the perfect balance and design in the Cosmos. If you give it a deep thought you would find that this world is like a house, which contains all the necessary ingredients for the well-being of its dwellers. The lofty sky is its roof; the earth is the floor, the shining stars are the lamps, the precious stones are its treasury and man is its owner and occupier. The animal and vegetation domain is a provision for his needs.”

The process of its design contains all the clues that its creation, management, sustainability are all well-coordinated. Its Creator and Owner is all wise, who has made its various components interconnected. He is the true God, worthy of adoration and worship, and whatever atheists and polytheists say about him, He is beyond those remarks.

It is part of human nature that whenever he sees organisation and a plan in any structure, he immediately acknowledges that an expert hand has orchestrated it. On the contrary if he observes irregularity and chaotic display of things, he assumes without hesitation that it might be a result of disorganization and some sort of accidental build-up.

This thought might not arise when he observes regular and well-proportioned things. Let me give an example. Take a couplet from the works of Ghalib, Iqbal or Shakespeare, break its rhythm and order of words, and then pass it on to an illiterate person. If he is asked to rearrange to the original form, it will be seen that due to lack of acquaintance with literature and poetry, he will not be able to reproduce the original couplet. On this basis, who in their right mind would believe that order and design could become manifest in the Universe on their own - from nowhere?

Likewise, the Qur’an has made an argument on the existence of a Creator:

مَّا تَرَىٰ فِي خَلْقِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ مِن تَفَاوُتٍ

“You see no incongruity in the creation of the Beneficent Allah; then look again, can you see any disorder?” (67:3).

ثُمَّ ارْجِعِ الْبَصَرَ كَرَّتَيْنِ يَنقَلِبْ إِلَيْكَ الْبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَهُوَ حَسِيرٌ

“Then turn back the eye again and again; your look shall come back to you confused while it is fatigued” (67:4).

الَّذِي خَلَقَ فَسَوَّىٰ

“Who hath created, and further, given order and proportion” (87:2).

وَالَّذِي قَدَّرَ فَهَدَىٰ

“Who hath ordained laws. And granted guidance” (87:3).

Milton Edward, a Western scholar has said,

“Man is deeply astonished when he finds that in the presence of frequent natural marvels, there are individuals, who still proclaim that this world came about as a result of an accident or a chance. In other words, it can be said that the consequences of the properties of matter hold these hypothetical possibilities and intellectual ambiguities that are termed as the faculty of perceptions, which have completely been neutralised by the true knowledge. A physicist would never accept such an idea.”

Herbert Spencer, a famous philosopher has said,

“When these mysteries, which are becoming more complicated by the day, are discussed frequently, they compel us to believe that there is an eternal superior power over man, who brought forward these objects.”

Professor Laney writes,

“God the Almighty appears with all His peculiar ingenuity before me in a manner that my eyes remain wide open, and I become bewildered. Everything, which might be a tiny speck, holds the wonders of His might, knowledge and invention.”

Sir Isaac Newton confesses,

“Despite abundant changes, in the numerous components of the Universe in terms of space and time, its arrangements and balance show that such a phenomenon is not possible without an eternal Almighty Being; that is Knowledgeable and holds full command.”

Camille Flamer Jean, a French philosopher says,

“All the professors fail to understand, how the things came into existence. That is why they have to accept the presence of such a Creator, who is effective and eternal.”1

What a strange coincidence, that after immense scientific innovations, the great philosophers and scientists still present the same arguments, which the Qur’an had illustrated beautifully fourteen hundred years ago.

إِنَّ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ لَآيَاتٍ لِّأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ

“Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day - there are indeed Signs for men of understanding” (3:190).

Professor Laney’s quote mentioned above, invites people to ponder on the creations of God, the more one examines its minor or major components, its Creator’s majesty is inscribed further onto his mind. That is why God has encouraged people to reflect more on His creation and its design for better ma’rifah.

أَوَلَمْ يَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِم مَّا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِلَّا بِالْحَق

“Have they not pondered upon themselves? Allah created not the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them, save with truth…” (30:8).

Or:

أَفَلَا يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى الْإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ

“Will they not regard the camels, how they are created?” (88:17).

وَإِلَى السَّمَاءِ كَيْفَ رُفِعَتْ

“And the heaven, how it is raised?” (88:18).

وَإِلَى الْجِبَالِ كَيْفَ نُصِبَتْ

“And the hills, how they are set up?” (88:19).

وَإِلَى الْأَرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ

“And the earth, how it is spread?” (88:20).

Or,

أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا إِلَى الْأَرْضِ كَمْ أَنبَتْنَا فِيهَا مِن كُلِّ زَوْجٍ كَرِيمٍ

“Have they not looked at the Earth that how we brought forward many pairs of delectable plants?” (26:7).

Or:

أَوَلَمْ يَنظُرُوا فِي مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ مِن شَيْءٍ وَأَنْ عَسَىٰ أَن يَكُونَ قَدِ اقْتَرَبَ أَجَلُهُمْ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ

“Have they not looked at the kingdom of Heavens and the Earth and all things that Allah has created; and that it may be that the end of their lives is near? In what message after this will they then believe?” (7:185).

That is why the Imams have asked us that whenever we intend to know the splendour of the Creator of the Universe, we must refer to His creation.

Miracles Of Human Body

Following is our commentary on a major creature living in this world. It is a well-known fact that amongst the multitude of life forms that exist, man is the foremost creature. Human body is a great exhibit of Allah’s ingenuity. Our intellect surrenders before it.

Gynaecologists have described the initiation of life in the uterus, which shows cell division and then continual development of the foetus. The same stem cells are programmed to do different jobs, some develop veins, eyes, and nose and others perform the remaining tasks. It has never happened that some stem cells revolt and start changing hearts into ears and lungs into feet, as if a greater power, before which the entire machinery of the Universe has surrendered, is watching over their tasks to the microscopic detail.

Technology has advanced to the extent that men are striving to uncover the nature and its secrets. Among them are those who do not find any need for God, and believe that the cosmos is functioning without a Sovereign and the innovations in the creative process are coming into existence on their own.

There is nothing left to ask from the statuettes of obstinacy. If everything is happening on its own and there is no hidden eye to supervise this act, then why didn’t cells in a mother’s womb give one a shape other than that of a man? Why was the head not replaced by that of a donkey or a tail similar to that of a monkey, or a customised winged horse or a tortoise or even a frog developed out of human embryo? Why was it that a human body did not reproduce into a goat and a goat did not produce a hen?

If they have no answer available then let us look at what Qur’an has in answer to this why:

يَخْلُقُكُمْ فِي بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ خَلْقًا مِّن بَعْدِ خَلْقٍ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ ثَلَاثٍ ذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ لَهُ الْمُلْك

“He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion” (39:6).

A Minor Cosmos

If we visit a manufacturing facility, we will find it subdivided into various sections, based on the principles of production in engineering. A section would control the power supply and at another place raw material would be processed and the chemicals mixed. In another section quality control checks would be made. Finally, the finished goods would be packed and sent to the dispatch section.

Similar is the state of this world. Winds blow, the Sun transmits light energy, vegetation flourishes, water drops from the clouds at times as a drizzle and at other times as torrential downpour. Although the shop floor of nature shows different sections working independently, it has the same inimitable control room, which is that of God, the Almighty.

Now look at the human body, hair grows over the head, tears flow out from the eyes, the heart pumps blood to various parts of the body, and the brain remains in an assessment mode. The engine of the entire shop floor is the Spirit. What part of the factory does the Spirit occupy?

The answer to this question is that it resides in each drop of blood or root of every hair, but if you cut the entire body, you will not be able to see this driving force of human shop floor. Similarly, God is evident from every bit of the material world, but like the spirit it cannot be seen. In the same way, human body is a minor cosmos in which the spirit is doing that which God does for the functioning of the Universe.

Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) spoke about the mystifying creation of man in his sermon of Ahlulej. He said:

“I wonder about those individuals who say that God is hidden from His people, when He is apparent through the might of His mind-blowing architecture and the balance and stability of His creation.”

What kind of technological successes have we achieved through the components of human body, such as hands, eyes and brain etc. The riddles of these limbs are still not within the reach of those who are experts in the field of anatomy. The Imam has revealed some secrets in a document known as the Risala al-Tawhid al-Mufazzal, in line with the mental approach of the petitioner.

Much has also been discussed on this topic in the book - Two Qur’ans.

This is why God has said:

وَفِي الْأَرْضِ آيَاتٌ لِّلْمُوقِنِينَ

“And in the earth there are signs for those who are sure” (51:20).

وَفِي أَنفُسِكُمْ أَفَلَا تُبْصِرُونَ

“And in your own souls (too); will you not then see?” (51:21).

Imam Ali (‘a), in one of his poems has addressed humans;

“Do you think that you are a trivial carcass, when a major Universe is residing within you? You are that lucid book; whose words reveal the hidden secrets. Your illness is due to your own doing, which you realise not and its cure and medicine is also within you.”

Now look at the creatures that are at the bottom of the list. Consider the examples of a mosquito or an ant, wherein, God has shown the flawlessness of His creativity that makes a human mind wonder. A mosquito contains everything that is present in the elephant and still it has two added limbs such as wings and two extra legs.

Similar is the constitution of an ant. Imam Ali (‘a), in one of his sermons has mentioned this,

“If those who deny God have looked at His might and blessings, they would have turned to Him in belief and would have feared the fire of hell. Alas, their hearts are sick and the eyes are confused. Don’t they see both ends of His creation; major and minor that how God made their body strong and assured, and how their skin, bones, ears and eyes were designed.

Look at an ant that is so negligible in her physique that she might not even be noticed, while in action on the land, searching for her food, to be stored in her voids for the coming seasons and even for her next day. God has undertaken the responsibility for her subsistence and she receives her daily ration even if it is within a hard rock. If you examine upper and lower sections of her mouth, her abdominal and rib structure, her ears and eyes position in the head, you will then be deeply amazed and would be tired in praise of its mechanism. How great is the God who created her alone, without any others assistance?

Pity is for the person who denies God, in the presence of such majestic evidence. These unfortunate individuals think that they (ants) have come to existence like a wild plant and no one is their creator and designer, who produced variation in their shapes. They have no tentative proof of their distorted theory. How is it possible for a house to be built without a builder and living things without life.”

How complete and brilliant is the line of argument. Truly the words of the Imam express in the best of styles. The things, which Imam has pointed out in his lecture, if converted into a scientific work would need pages after pages for its description, and this book could not withstand this endeavour. We therefore, settle for a brief presentation.

The sole purpose of the quotation from the Qur’an, which is mentioned below is to attract one’s attention to the universal signs and symbols of God’s awareness dispersed around us:

سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

“We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?” (41:53).

In the light of these facts, can any right-minded person believe that this cosmos has arisen accidentally from a dead senseless matter, without an All-Knowing God?

Third Objection

It has been made amply clear from arguments in the earlier section that a Universe, full of amazing and wonderful innovative designs, cannot arise from a dead inactive matter, just by virtue of a mistake. Even if we assume that such a absurd thought is somehow possible, the manifestation of everything in a material form by random chance is impossible.

It is fact is a well-established fact that an act of accident cannot become a repetitive incident. Suppose a man who started digging a hole for water and found a hidden treasure by chance or a man who aimed his gun at a game bird and instead missed his target to hit a person, who was happened to be his enemy and killed him. These random events do not mean that whenever the person digs for water, he will always find a treasure or whenever the person aims at a bird, he would hit and kill his enemy. It can then be observed that since the creation of the Universe, a disturbance in its organized domain has not been noted. Every individual component of the Universe remains obediently busy in performing its assigned task, as pointed by the Qur’an:

وَالشَّمْسُ تَجْرِي لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَّهَا ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ

“And the sun runs on to a term appointed for it; that is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knowing” (36:38).

وَالْقَمَرَ قَدَّرْنَاهُ مَنَازِلَ حَتَّىٰ عَادَ كَالْعُرْجُونِ الْقَدِيمِ

“And (as for) the moon, We have ordained for it stages till it becomes again as an old dry palm branch” (36:39).

لَا الشَّمْسُ يَنبَغِي لَهَا أَن تُدْرِكَ الْقَمَرَ وَلَا اللَّيْلُ سَابِقُ النَّهَارِ وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ

“Neither is it allowable to the sun that it should overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day; and all float on in an orbit” (36:40).

And:

تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ الْمُلْكُ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

“Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things” (67:1).

الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَالْحَيَاةَ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفُور

“Who created death and life that He may try you - which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving” (67:2).

الَّذِي خَلَقَ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ طِبَاقًا مَّا تَرَىٰ فِي خَلْقِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ مِن تَفَاوُتٍ فَارْجِعِ الْبَصَرَ هَلْ تَرَىٰ مِن فُطُورٍ

“Who created the seven heavens one above another; you see no incongruity in the creation of the Beneficent Allah; then look again, can you see any disorder?” (67:3).

ثُمَّ ارْجِعِ الْبَصَرَ كَرَّتَيْنِ يَنقَلِبْ إِلَيْكَ الْبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَهُوَ حَسِيرٌ

“Then turn back the eye again and again; your look shall come back to you confused while it is fatigued” (67:4).

An intelligent being, after seeing the miracles of creation will be humbled to confess that certainly a mighty wise mind is engaged behind this show. Professor William McBride says,

“Can anyone seriously say that a complete balance in the components of the Universe is merely an accident? Is it possible for the rivers to flow towards the higher planes?”

Fourth Objection

When those who refute the existence of God realised that their ideas could not be defended with such weak arguments, a few modernists among them, such as Darwin, avoiding the inanity of their seniors, suggested a new concept. This was just as absurd as the arguments put forward by the predecessors. This theory, called the theory of evolution, was presented in his paper - ‘Origin of the Species.’

According to this theory various forms of life that exist today were not created separately and specifically. Rather, these were simple species to begin with, and gradually transformed into different geneses under the laws of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest.

Man, according to this theory, had descended from ape and then slowly evolved into this present form. Both ape and man, in the distant past, had some other common ancestors. To summarise, it could be said that man was not created in his present form.

This theory made it possible to avoid the earlier objection about how dead and barren matter, devoid of consciousness, could give rise to an intelligent life. This concept of evolution, like the earlier suggestions could not be accepted due to various reasons. At best, it could be seen as a conjecture against intellectual and natural canons. The concept was opposite to the accepted principle of the atheists, where they would not agree to a phenomenon, unless it was observed when it was happening. It was on this basis that they denied the existence of God. We now ask them that if they did witness an ape having changed into a human.

For an affirmative answer, they should furnish its proof. If their answer is in negative, then how could they agree to an event that they had not watched happening? If the belief in the unseen is a part of their atheistic culture, then it is lot better to accept the Islamic doctrine and recognize that God had created all species separately in their present forms.

In Islamic doctrine there are undeniable assertions that God had created all the habitants of the Earth in their present form specifically. On the contrary evolutionists do not have a similar indication; all they can present is a conjecture, a reflection of their distorted imagination.

First Argument Of The Theory Of Evolution

Atheists say that some body parts of a living being had been found in other animals, which are redundant. This suggests that every species had not been created specifically, otherwise it would comprise only the necessary parts. The presence of such appendages and organs which are redundant, they say, points to its previous history. Therefore, when a species evolved into a new one, most organs in previous form began to disappear but some were left behind as a signature of its prior existence.

To prove this, they submitted some pieces of skeletons and using which they suggested that man had evolved from the same lineage as apes.

However, their arguments are mostly conjectures. Such propositions have no meaning at all in matters of belief. This concept is only viable when no other possibility is available.

To answer this proposition of theory of evolution, one could say that the presence of these extra parts indicates that they had some useful tasks to play, which is hitherto unknown to scientists. This is similar to many examples that exist in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, as mentioned in the books of physiology, whose function and purpose are yet to be known. So, when it is accepted that when humans, despite their great leap in knowledge, still remain unaware of the purpose of so many things around us, then with what certainty could one say that these components had no other use apart from being evidence of evolution?

Secondly, the conclusion adopted by the evolutionists is imperfect, since a change in few parts of a species cannot be evidence that this rule is applicable to every species. This can at the most be treated as a minor misgiving in the prevailing concept, which is not very useful for the evolutionists.

Thirdly, if the evolution theory had any substance, then it was vital that some observable impressions of the process were to be found in all ages among the existing species. However, if we were to accept that a period of at least a hundred thousand or more years is required for a complete transformation of a species, then the present civilised world which has an estimated time of up to 25,000 thousand years must have some clear indications of a lower species gearing up for the next class. The same statement can be said about man, whose next progression in terms of a new species must be predicted and then physically presented.

In the textbooks of biology, a famous case of Galapagos finches was presented as a proof of evolution. Darwin visited a group of islands near the coast of South America. The animals and plants of those islands fascinated him. Darwin studied thirteen different varieties of finches. He suggested that they must have descended from birds that had flown to the islands, or been brought there by winds from the mainland.

He noticed differences in the beaks of the finches. They had different beaks for different diets. Some had thick beaks to crush seeds, while the others had slender beaks to catch insects. He suggested that the thick beak finches had come from the mainland but there was not enough food for all the birds so those with slightly different beaks were able to eat other type of food. These finches survived to pass on their adaptation to their offspring. This is what they presented as a proof.

If we accept Darwin’s scenario, which is nothing but a pack of suppositions, the species genetically remained the same with only minor changes in its physical form. It is almost two hundred years now since Darwin first visited the islands, by now those finches would have gone much further in their evolutionary path and it would have been much easier for Darwin’s followers to travel to those Islands and present the progress to the world.

However, their silence speaks for itself. They can travel to those islands a million years later, yet they will not find a species change in the finches. A finch will remain a finch and it will not become a tiger or an eagle.

The same is true for all other species. They remain similar to what they were thousands of years ago with matching limbs, similar behaviour and the same facial look. A recent paper published in the New Scientist served as a deathblow to a major Darwinian claim, which suggested that natural selection alone is responsible for species change. According to the new finding, natural selection on its own cannot account for this change. A big accident is needed every time when such a change is due.

If diet could cause a change in the shape of the beaks, I would suggest that the Darwinists must travel to India, where there is a mixed population of meat eaters and vegetarians. Some of those people whose generations can be traced from four to ten thousand years as vegetarians, their lineage must express at least a visible dental change and their carnivorous teeth should have disappeared and instead a soft chewing mechanism should have evolved.

This has not happened, which shows that Darwin’s theory of evolution is merely a figment of imagination. Moreover, the supporters of the Darwin’s theory had propagated a lot of fraud in terms of implanting different parts from different creatures in relation to ape and human skeletons2.

Second Argument Of The Theory Of Evolution

The evolutionists also say that there is a definite resemblance in various aspects of man and monkey, which suggests that the origin of man is through the lineage of monkey. This argument is weak due to certain reasons. If the suggestion is based merely on a similarity between the two species, then what if someone postulated that man is the stem and monkey is its leaf - what would be the Darwinian reply?

The Creator has set up a system of creation in such a way that some similarity is kept within the subsets of every species. And despite the differences in their basics and their apparent functions or characteristics, if the claim that “A” has evolved from “B” could be accepted to be true, simply on the basis of a minor external resemblance, then someone else could proclaim its opposite. Then who could stop it from being declared that a cypress tree has evolved from a palm tree or the olives from grapes or a cow has descended from buffalo or vice versa? And then who would be wise to agree to such tenacity? Can an intellectual mind accept such possibilities?

If it was true that man had developed from the lineage of a monkey in a gradual manner, then he should be the ultimate product of evolution. He should be ahead of monkeys in all faculties at all times. Actually, this is not true. Man’s offspring is physically so fragile at birth that it is incapable of movement or any kind of decision-making. It does not even know how to suckle milk from its mother’s breast. It takes a while for him to learn this trait. When he becomes capable of progress he develops into a great scientist or a philosopher and wins over the elements of nature with his God-given intellect, and brings the Sun and Moon into his sphere of influence.

On the other hand, a monkey at birth is more active like other animals. It contributes to tasks with his mother during the developing years, eats proper food and distinguishes between beneficial and unhealthy provisions. Hence in the beginning a monkey has a level of awareness, which is manifold compared to a human baby. This difference led to the conclusion that man has not evolved from a monkey, because if it was so then he would not be inferior in his abilities to a monkey at birth.

These were the reasons, which made many European thinkers to differ with Darwin. They accepted that the theory of evolution was not rooted on solid scientific facts. In fact, it can be deduced from credible arguments that man was perfect in his faculties right from the time of his creation and did not need a process of evolution from ape to live and function as they did.

Third Argument Of The Theory Of Evolution

The people who deny the Being of God, live amid a great disarray of thoughts and change their colours like a chameleon, due to their fickle-minded nature. They make one objection or the other, without a firm commitment to their point of view. Anyhow, when their previous objections do not seem to work, they propose something new, such as:

• There are some parts within human anatomy, which do not seem to play any role, e.g. nipples on men’s chest and additional skin on the penis.

• Some creatures are harmful, such as snakes, scorpion etc. These and many other insects have no role. These insects are the remnants of matter’s ability to create and there is no knowledgeable God.

These objections are not acceptable on the several grounds.

The author of Risala al-Hamidia compared those who believe and dispute the Being of God with the example of two people (referencing through Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq’s document, Risal al-Tawhid al-Muffazal), who enter an elegant palace with strongly constructed rooms, floors covered with expensive carpets, comfortable seating arrangements and graceful decorations all around. Outside the palace are well-preserved gardens and neatly linked canals and fountains brimming with water. Any visitor who entered this palace would praise the enormous effort and the skills of its architect.

However, when the two proposed persons, after strolling in various parts of the palace, reach an area where there is a structure, whose utility is not obvious to them, then one of them could say that although the builder of this palace is not in their sight, the engineering incorporated in the design of the palace suggested that this structure also must have some meaning to its designer, which they are not able to appreciate at this moment.

The other visitor, after examining everything, might say that an expert engineer has not built this palace since he is not seen. This visitor would not be able understand the value of the structure whose purpose is not obvious. He may then point to a nearby mountain and say that the winds have blown for a long time and have made the stones and the soil roll down to a near the site. Rains and wind managed to make mortar out of the clay, the windows and doors were magically carved out of the wood gradually. And then, with the passage of time, the mud, the stones and the timber decided to join each other to construct this palace.

The decision now lies with the people of intellect to choose which of the two versions of visitors’ statement is acceptable?

Is it not weird to find that the atheists consider all those who believe that the Cosmos has been created by a Knowledgeable Being as being duped, and themselves as all wise because of their supposition that intelligence has arisen out of dead senseless matter without any external intervention?

Although, the above-mentioned reasonings could be sufficient to satisfy an inquisitive mind, we make further suggestions here.

It is an established fact that ignorance about a thing does not imply that it does not exist. On the other hand, if we say that we have discovered the properties and benefits of most things in nature completely with their exquisite details in terms of complicated structures, then those configurations - which are yet to be discovered and understood - must also have some purpose as nothing is meaningless in the world of nature. For this reason, we must strive to find its hidden secrets.

Although human knowledge is not complete enough to discover the meaning of everything in the Universe, with continuous efforts he can unearth much knowledge about unknown things. The logic of scientific research also dictates that failure to understand an enigma is to accept the limitation of one’s knowledge rather than discarding the phenomenon itself.

With the grace of God, despite intellectual deficits, we are able to say that we are not that ignorant of the purpose of some redundant parts in human body, as claimed by the atheists. The advent of science, which has made many religions to tremble in their hearts, due to the demolition of their credence, is making Muslims blissful and joyous in their faith, since there is no conflict in Islam between appropriately oriented scientific research and their religion.

We now discuss some of the uses of the redundant parts of human body.

The Foreskin: The front end of human penis is very delicate and can invite bacterial growth. The child cannot receive necessary care in mother’s womb; therefore, the Creator has provided the required protection for him in the uterus. After birth the skin has to be removed in order to prevent dangerous bacteria growing as some urine drops are retained within the space under the skin of the penis. Recent research has revealed that AIDS virus flourishes in non-circumcised penises. That is why thousands of African Christian children are circumcised every year in the continent.

A recent publication in the New Scientist (May, 2008) has shed some light on the possible uses of the so-called redundant parts of the human body.

Dangerous Insects: Similarly, scorpions, snakes and other poisonous insects can clean up the environment around us by absorbing harmful bacteria. Their poisons are also used to produce antibodies for certain diseases. Furthermore, they employ their poisons to stun their prey, which are mostly rats, lizards, frogs and other reptiles, whose spread can cause problems for human colonies.

Fourth Argument Of The Theory Of Evolution

Shibli had quoted Ibn Rushd, who said that all evil, which existed in the world, was not an original embodiment but it was subjected to some virtue. For example, anger was considered to be an iniquity but this feeling had been created out of the sense of self-defence. If this ability was absent then nobody would stand up against a murderer to save his life. Obscenity and lust were related to a function that was essential for human reproduction and his ultimate survival.

Fire could burn houses, grassy meadows, forests and even cities to ashes but without it the life on the planet would be difficult. Hence, the separation of iniquity from virtue was apparently impossible. It was not feasible to create a fire that could cook foods but fail to ignite if used to burn a Mosque or a Church.

Summary Of The Current Discussion

To summarise this discussion, we can say that whatever exists in the Universe is not devoid of the two states i.e. neither are they pure goodness nor are they with excessive share of undesirable quality.

There was nothing in the world, which was absolute evil or with disproportionate distribution of evil and good, such that evil is predominant. Consequently, no one could say that whatever ills we see in the world are really defects, when the total organization of Universe was not within our view. So, it is not possible for us to deny the quality and might of God, given that our knowledge was very limited, as certified by the Qur’an.

Summary Of The Previous Discussions

In view of the fulfilling statements and rewarding discussions presented earlier, it had been established that recognition of the Being of God is as natural and free of doubts as the presence of Sun on a clear day.

It was reported in a recent publication of the New Scientist (7th February, 2009) that belief in God was hard-wired into human brain. So, religion was part of human nature and our brains were primed for it.

The author wrote:

“While many institutions collapsed during the Great Depression that began in 1929, one kind did rather well. During the leanest of times, the strictest and most authoritarian churches saw a surge in attendance. This anomaly was documented in the early 1970s, and only now is science beginning to tell us why?

It turns out that human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during times of misfortune. Our brains effortlessly conjure up an imaginary world of spirit, gods and monsters. The more insecure we feel, the more difficult it is to resist the pull of this supernatural world. Thus, it seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in gods.”

Author Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale, continued and attributed this change to the evolutionary demand for the continuation of our species. Ignore the words such as gods and monsters, because the author was an atheist of Christian background, and it was expected from such authors that they will pollute unsoiled waters. However, the fact of the matter is that belief in God is a natural instinct of all humans. This research also whitewashed the work of earlier European philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell, who claimed that belief in God came through fear of natural phenomenon.

A Greek philosopher had said that recognition of God was one of those facts, which could be proven by a simple academic exercise.

Hakim Ibn Maskoyya said that no reports had been received on behalf of any philosopher that denied the existence of God or showed any reluctance in this regard. And, if anyone had other views in the matter, then the great masters did not count him among the wise. In fact, such a person was not worth being included among the astute, because Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) had defined wisdom in the following terms, “Wisdom is something through which worship of God is done and the Paradise is earned.”

Therefore, a person who not only defied the statement of the Imam but also negated God could not be counted among the judicious at all.

Argument Of Self Assurance

Wisdom demands that whenever a person is confronted with the possibility of a danger, a defensive approach is adopted. This requirement is even more vital when the hazard is real.

It was an observed fact that when a person informed a passerby about a beast on their way, who was on the lookout for a prey and would ravage anyone who walked that path leading to his death, then a person of even mediocre wisdom, would think twice before going in that direction. This would be so even if there were some doubts about the informer’s credibility. This was so because there was an element of risk to his safety. Anyone with even a little common sense would not compromise his own security. This was in line with the natural inclination of human beings. Regrettably the atheists completely abandoned this approach relating to their own belief in God.

We have seen many true Prophets, their deputies and millions of their followers announce that God existed and that He has created another dominion beyond this world, which contained paradise and hell, where the people would dwell after their death as a favour or punishment. Should this scenario not appeal to an intelligent being when assessing the pros and cons of belief in God, with an objective mind?

If he contemplated on this, his mind would guide him to the fact that despite all the reasonings that existed in support of God, the state of affairs could not be devoid of two possibilities i.e. either there is a God or there is not. If there was no God the believers and non-believers would all be alike after death, since there will be no questioning, and no contention of paradise or hell for anyone. However, if the other possibility was true – that there was a God, then those who denied God would be in end in hell and the believers would be saved. This proved that it would be more prudent for one to believe in God, and the intellect guided us to this conclusion.

According to some researchers, the collective wisdom was as satisfying in the knowledge based on sensory perception as well as in matters for logical discourse. However, the warped minds remain uninfluenced by a great majority of indications and persist in their original rejection. Therefore, under the present circumstances, who would count them among the wise?

The Imams and the other spiritual leaders offered the same argument. The following is the translation of some couplets from a poem by Imam Ali (‘a).

“The astrologer and Hakim both said that corpses never rise

I answered them to remain silent, and be on their own

If by chance their statement was correct

Then I have lost nothing But if I was right

They will have no place to hide.”

A similar argument had also been reported from Imam As-Sadiq (‘a). An atheist approached him and criticised his acts of worship such as prayers, fasting and ablution etc as waste of valuable time, and suggested to him that he should spend these borrowed moments in some other blissful activity. Imam replied that if his act was private and personal, and that there was no God and no resurrection and trial after death, then there was no loss for him (Imam). However, if his (Imam’s) point of view were correct, where would these misjudgements take him (the Atheist)? Imam’s argument shook the atheist from his core and he immediately accepted Islam at the hands of Imam.

Let me quote you the impressions of a former believer who turned atheist and later converted to Islam, in his own words. He said: “I was reading a religious magazine and my attention was focussed on a statement quoted Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) in response to a question from an atheist. After finishing the reading of that text, the magazine fell down from my hands and my brain felt a jolt. I sensed, as if Imam was talking to me by saying that if he (Imam) was right, then what kind of future was awaiting me for my carefree attitude? My eyes were open, and I could not see anything but those lines. My ears were open but sound of the same sentence took the pleasure of sleep from eyes.

I was in a weird situation, my mouth was dry, body was shivering and the brain was repeating the same sentence… If he (Imam) was right, then what kind of future was awaiting for me with my carefree attitude? The same condition prevailed for seven to eight days. I feel greatly relieved today by saying that by the grace of fourteen Infallibles my brain solved that riddle, which had evaded me for so many years.”

A Question About God And Its Reply

Many intellectuals who lacked insight were confused, and asked the question that from where did God manifest Himself? To answer this question, we have to explore some fundamental avenues, a part of which had already been discussed in the previous sections.

Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari wrote in his book – ‘God and His Attributes’ that, “The principle of causality is a general law for all human efforts. The scholars solve their problems with a belief that no phenomenon manifests itself without a cause. Restricted by the limitations of matter, we do not encounter anything in life by accident, and indeed, no one has ever encountered, in the history of the world, an incident that did not arise from a cause.

The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is dependent on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause.

This specific relationship cannot be replaced or destroyed by another. However, a phenomenon that comes into being as a consequence of a cause would never lose its essential privation. It will always remain a being characterised by need. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause to be present for effect to be manifest is permanent and indissoluble.

If, however, the relationship can be disengaged, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately yield to non-existence, in a manner similar to when halting electricity generators would cause the connected glowing lamps to be plunged into darkness. Therefore, no phenomenon could manifest itself in the living world, until a certain power is bestowed on it by the one, whose essence is itself the very source from which the life gushes forth.”

The followers of atheism paid much attention to the principle that God did not stand in need of a cause. They said that if we supposed the Creator to be the origin of the world and the one who bestowed existence upon it so that all phenomena derived their origination and continued existence from him, then what cause had freed him of the need for having the creator? What agent had caused him to come into being?

Lord Bertrand Russell, while addressing the London Atheist Society, said: “One day, when I was eighteen years of age, I was reading the autobiography of John Stuart Mill. One sentence in particular caught my attention. Mill wrote that he asked his father one day, who had brought him to existence, and his father was unable to answer.”

The reason for this was that he immediately posed the question about who brought God into being. Russell then added: “I am still convinced that the simple sentence exposes the sophistry of the primary cause. For if everything must have a reason or a cause for its existence, the same must then apply to the existence of God. If, on the contrary, something can exist without reason or a cause, that thing might be either God or the world, and the whole discussion becomes meaningless.”

Unfortunately, certain Western Philosophers, who accepted the existence of God, had been unable to solve this problem. Herbert Spencer, an English Philosopher said: “The problem is that on one hand human reason seeks a cause for everything and on the other hand refuses all circularity. It neither perceives nor comprehends a cause that itself has not been caused. When the priest tells a child that God has created the world, the child asks who has created God.”

We could raise precisely the same objection against the materialists and ask them that if we had followed the chain of causality in reverse, we would have ultimately reached the primary cause, which was, say not God, then tell us who created that primary matter? In other words, on the basis of the law of causality what was the cause of matter? If you said that the source of all phenomena was matter-energy, then what was the cause of the matter-energy?

Naturally, this discussion would lead us to the supposition that the chain of causality could not extend to infinity and that matter was eternal and a timeless entity, for which no beginning could be appointed. It would lead to surmise that matter was not created, it had no beginning or end, and its having arisen from within its own nature.

This meant that the materialists did not accept the principle of eternity and non-origination. They believed that all things arose out of eternal matter and this creativity arose from within the very nature of matter without any need for a creator. Russell openly admits this belief in the above quoted lecture. He says: “There is no proof that the world ever had a beginning resulting from the poverty of our imagination.”

In just the same way that Russell regarded matter as eternal, believers in God attributed eternity to Allah. Belief in an eternal being was thus common to materialists and religious philosophers. Both believed that there was a primary cause, which was wise, all-knowing, omnipotent, and in possession of the power of decision and will. It was God according to the believers. It was non-conscious, unwise, unaware, with no capacity of decision-making, and virtually dead primordial matter, according to the materialists.

Therefore, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being. Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic. It is situated within its own essence. However, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that could not be fused into a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence could not accept movement and change within that essence.

When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally share with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause; He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestation and phenomena of existence derived from Him - the internal source of being. The law of causality applied uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their existence.

Similarly, the meaning of the first cause is not that God originated Himself - that He was his own cause. The need of the effect for the cause lies in the type of existence of the former. It exists not because it is essentially existent but as a result of the derivative and dependent existence it acquires from the cause. But a being whose nature is subject to no condition and exhibits a complete absence of dependence and connection is totally removed from the sphere which the law of causality applies.

If a being, by virtue of the perfection and independence from the need of its essence, stand in no need for a cause, it follows that no cause had fixed it at a given degree of being, and that no cause could intervene in it.

The chain of causality could not be extended indefinitely backwards, and an absence of connection is inherent in the very concept of the first cause. The question - “Whence did the first cause arise?” – therefore, did not arise. Such questions apply only to the origins of phenomena and their dependency.

Character Building Uses The Belief In God

After considering the above discussion, an informed reader would be convinced about the existence of God. This belief has its obvious benefits. These have been outlined below.

Firstly, this belief is the foundation of all virtues. When this concept is engulfed with doubts, man becomes complacent about the acts of piety. He could not keep equilibrium with truth and justice despite his best of intentions. Finally, he became a tool in the hands of Satan. This is because he has no faith on the questionings and punishments of the Day of Judgment, and therefore, there is no need for him to conform to any moral standards.

When there is no police to question and arrest a criminal, why wouldn’t a person commit an illegal act, which has obvious benefits for him? Any affinity for moral acts that is found among the non-believers is due to their inner insecurity, since they valiantly showed their antipathy towards God and the Day of Judgment, but still hold a fear in some remote corner of their heart, lest there might be a God, who might question them after their death.

On the other hand, many believers are found in the quagmire of sin, because their belief in God is verbal and customary. They are in doubt about the existence of God even when prostrating in Salat (prayers). That is why, the Qur’an repeatedly refers to the manifestations of nature and asked them of their views as to whether it was all created for nothing or there is a purpose behind the creation? Whoever would cast an incisive look into nature, would automatically acknowledge their belief to be in conformity with Unity of God.

Secondly, belief in God broadens one’s viewpoint to appreciate infinite limits of Allah. Doubts and denial make him visualise Allah as limited.

As a result of this thought they wander within the confines of truncated apparitions and capabilities to seek other benefactors. They then fear the strong and suppress the feeble. After believing in God, their vision expands to incorporate the Universe. Their measure of love and hate began to comply with the love of God. Therefore, a believer could not be a narrow-minded person.

Thirdly, belief in God confers a wealth of dignity and self-respect, which takes a man permanently out of the squalors of disrespect and insolence. Unless, a person had such a conviction, he would always be afraid of and submissive to the powerful and strong. Their desires and requirements would remain attached permanently to them.

However, when they accept God, they realise that all those whom they consider to be a benefactor or a patron, are in fact, no more than beggars and needy in front of God. It is He who grants success and subsistence and is in possession of the powers of benediction and impairment. As a matter of fact, He alone is the source of all might and majesty. Therefore, after having this faith, a man’s head would never bow to any despot or a tyrant.

Fourthly, after believing in God, a man becomes free of base characters such as bigotry, arrogance and envy. Instead, the qualities, which are the epitome of a fine disposition, like self-respect, hospitality, kindness and humility take root. Man comes to understand that not only he himself, but also the entire world is in need of Him. God is the source of every happiness and blessing to him. His demeanour changes from arrogance to humility. It was for these people that God said in the Qur’an:

وَعِبَادُ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الَّذِينَ يَمْشُونَ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ هَوْنًا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ الْجَاهِلُونَ قَالُوا سَلَامًا

“The pure servants of God are those, who walk gently on the earth, and when the ignorant speak to them impudently, they disengage themselves from them respectfully” (25:63).

Fifthly, belief in God creates a self-satisfying provision of assurance and hope, negating any despair and distrust within man. This is such because he now possesses an inexhaustible cache of trust, which remains with him, even if the apparent material support has abandoned him.

A believer knows that his Lord is kind and generous. As any thought of dejection against His favours is equivalent to denying Him, so he accepted that his Lord does not commit injustice and act with malice, He listened to the requests and pleas of His subjects, and is nearer to them than their own souls.

This trust and hope created within such a person, the grand qualities of patience and psychological pleasure that could not be undone by trials and tribulations. He now sincerely believed that if God is with him, no worldly power could subdue him, and any ordeal that befalls him, was within the great design of his Lord, and He alone could remove that distress.

Sixthly, belief in God remove fear and cowardice from the mind of a believer and qualities like bravery and generosity are developed in his character. Obviously, cowardice is fashioned by self-adoration and the love of wealth, which is instrumental in initiating the sense of apprehension and loss.

Belief in God could truncate these aspects from their roots. It is realised that wealth and other riches remain only for a brief period and love for these is also temporary. The focus now becomes something, which is everlasting. Since all mundane objects are only temporary, one opts for permanence by embracing death, which is not a source of fear any more.

A believer trusts that material weapons do not have inherent destructive capabilities, except with the permission of God, and if He desires otherwise, then such weapons could become totally ineffective. The person now submits entirely to God and relinquishes his rights of life and death to Him.

Seventhly, this belief purifies the believers from vile characteristics such as greed and envy, which are replaced by contentment and sufficiency. When a believer accepts that God, who gives a needy in open measures, controlled livelihood, he would then not indulge in despicable activities to earn his living. Instead, he strives through equitable means and is satisfied with whatever he earns.

The believer knows that power and ignominy remain with God and accepts that disparities in wealth and status were heavenly designs that could not be changed by mortals. No matter how much one strives, these discrepancies would always exist in every society. However, the measures of affluence and paucity are different in different cultures.

Belief in God sanitizes the society in terms of moral purification and sense of responsibility, where laws are respected and all members appear as beads in a common thread.

Belief in God makes a man consider that there is no escape from His immeasurable kingdom. One becomes mindful of the minute details of their actions, are aware that these are not hidden from Him, when they had to appear before Him one day, where the appraisal and questioning would be very hard despite His compassion. The impact on his personality and moral fibre, thus, became self-evident.

It Is Not Possible To Know The Essence Of God

Whatever we have expressed so far was with the intent to prove that the Universe, with all its components came into existence only because there is God, belief in whom is only natural and logical. However, if someone asked us to show the nature of God’s essence, then it was not possible.

Leading scholar Shaykh Bahai wrote in his research paper that a human approach to understand God’s essence was not possible and the same was the opinion of Allama Al-Majlisi. It was such a critical matter, where even the Prophets and their successors were humbled. It is true that the human mind is too limited to indulge in such an effort. Imam Ali (‘a), in his supplication known as Dua al-Mashlool said, “Glorious is He whose essence is not known to anyone.”

The Holy Prophet (S) said, “God’s essence is hidden from human intellect in a way the objects are veiled from one’s sight. The heavenly bodies search for Him as you do on the earth.”

Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) said, “All praise is reserved for the God alone, whose station of approbation cannot be reached by the worshippers nor can his favours be counted or His rights be repaid. Efforts of a seeker cannot comprehend His position nor can the profundity of intellect and skill gauge His Essence. There are no limits for Him and no bounds for His praise. There are no time confines for His beginning or end.”

Similarly, Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin (‘a) in his Dua al-Tahmeed said, “All praise is due to the Lord, who is that first, which cannot be preceded by anyone and that last, which cannot be followed by another one. He is so exalted and refined that sight cannot embrace Him and the extols of the eulogisers and their fantasies are well below his prominence.” He further said in Dua al-Dushanbe, “Language is inadequate to express His Attributes and intellect is incapable to access His reality.”

Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir (‘a) said. “Anyone who constructs God in his own mental mould must remember that God is something else, because a configuration, which is depicted in mind, is his own creation and that cannot be God as He is the Creator not a creation.”

As-Sadiq Aali Muhammad (‘a) said, “How can I associate God with a concept, a state or a thing, since God Himself has created states that have manifested into shapes and through those we have recognised the notion of state? Therefore, how can a Creator and His creatures be coupled with same attributes?”

This was why Imam Ali (‘a) had warned us by saying that we should not let our intellect to ramble on this racing track, which can lead us to destruction. It was for this reason the religious guides i.e. Imams, have prohibited the believers from indulging in this exercise. Several traditions of this subject have been recorded in Usul al-Kafi and other authentic religious books.

Imam Al-Baqir (‘a) said that if people want to ponder about the essence of God, then they must view His majesty in His creation. He further emphasised that people could talk as much as they want about His creatures but should restrain themselves from entering His personal domain, which could only exacerbate the situation that could lead to mental chaos and ambiguity.

Similarly, it was narrated on the authority of Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) that one should not discuss the essence of God and ask the questions about His physical aspects - in terms of shape and size, as issues like these would lead him off the course to wilderness of disbelief. Therefore, if discussion on a subject is expanded to discuss God, it would be wise to remain silent. This is so because it is sufficient to believe that He is the originator of the Universe, capable of every pinnacle of eminence, and free of any vile attributes. There is nothing in the Universe that resembles Him. He is unique and independent. Nothing had evolved from Him and vice versa and there is none bears likeness to Him.

Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) said that whosoever had recited Surah Ikhlas with an understanding had obtained the feel of monotheism. Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin (‘a) said that God Almighty had known that towards the end of time some people would discuss deeply the Person of God. This is why He revealed Surah Ikhlas and the first few Verses of Surah Al-Hadid. Thus, anyone who strive for more than what had already been said would be lost.

It was related from Hisham that an atheist asked Imam As-Sadiq (‘a) about the nature of God. Imam replied, “He is a thing different from all other things. When he labelled Him with the word thing, he meant that He is a thing in reality, as He is essential and all the other things are probable. He has no body or shape nor can He be perceived through outward and inward senses, including the five senses of sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing. Nor can imagination embrace him, and He does not change with time.”

Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) was asked as to how much understanding of the God was required. He replied, “One should accept that there is no deity other than Him. He is unique and unlike any other thing. He is eternal and will remain forever and no one is similar to Him.”

Ibn Abil Hadid Mo’tazeli had depicted this idea in beautiful Verses. He wrote, “O, the wonder of the Cosmos, thoughts and intellect are meagre in Your presence. You have made the intellectuals and scholars dilapidated. When I sharpen my brain to advance an inch towards You, it goes on the back track by a mile and I do not see any way forward.”

Imam Ali (‘a) narrated a Hadith from the holy Prophet (S), which stated, “Anyone who enquires about the nature and essence of God is ignorant, and the one who answers that question is a Mushrik, and that who could not be acquainted with God within the set limits is an infidel.”

Shaykh Bahai wrote in relation to the above Hadith that what is needed from us is to acquire acquaintance with God’s attributes that fell within human endeavour. As far as the real understanding of God essence is concerned, we stand nowhere, since Angels and even the Prophets had no statements to make in that respect. So, we would end this discussion with the Prophet’s note, which stated: “O, God we have not acknowledged You in the befitting manner.”

Discussion Of The Factual Attributes As Being The Essence Of God

It is an established fact that one of the methods to understand a phenomenon is to investigate the characteristics of that being. In this manner the personality of the adored becomes plain by design.

If we adopt this approach to investigate God then a difficulty arises due to the fact that as far as it had been known, God’s real characteristics (Sifat al-Haqiqia excluding attributes of action) were His Essence and not additional to His Persona, just as Imam Ali had said in Nahj al-Balagha:

“The first loop of religious sequence (Deen) is to recognize God, and the stature of recognition is to confirm Him. The significance of confirmation is to believe in His oneness (Tawhid) and the pinnacle of Tawhid is to deny additional attributes, as every attribute is an indication of the fact that it is other than the proposed personality, and every icon is a witness to His partition from the imagined trait.

Therefore, whoever associated God with exterior traits (Sifat al-Zahira) he ascribed a companion to God and who ascribed companionship, ascribed duality and who ascribed duality admitted to portioning of God, and who allowed segmenting of God, is actually uninformed and ignorant, and the one who is ignorant about Him thought that He is capable of being pointed to, and the one who adhered to this thought confined Him, and the one who confined Him to certain limits, made a count of Him, and the one who said; what enclosed Him, imagined that He is within an object, and the one who said that He is on an object supposed that other items are empty of him.”

In the above statement of Imam Ali (‘a), many aspects of Tawhid had been described and our purpose of including the above text at this juncture is to provide evidence to negate Sifat al- Zahira. However, the differentiation of attributes of Essence (Sifat al-Zat) and features of action would be made later in the second chapter, where the author Allama Al-Qummi had initiated the discussion.

This unification of person and attributes meant that for God there is no duality of essence and attributes, and He is one on both counts i.e. His Person and Attributes are the same. This is why this Personality on the basis of manifestation of Knowledge, Power, Life, and Hearing is called Aalim, Qadir, Hayy and Sami’.

There was no moment that could be imagined as empty of God’s essence and His essential attributes. On the other hand, for those who possessed probable virtues, a time would come in their lives when they were devoid of knowledge, might, life, sight or even hearing. They may at a later date receive knowledge to become scholars and with the advent of subsequent phase acquire other capabilities. The being of God however, is beyond from such deficiencies.

Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) said, “Our Lord was always knowledge before anything to be known has existed. He was Sami’ and Baseer when there was nothing visible or audible. He was always mighty when there was no recipient of strength. Later on when He created things, objects manifested and his knowledge appeared in complete harmony with them and His attributes of Sama, Basarat and Qudrat came to pass on relevant objects.”

Our Muslim (Sunni) brothers have developed an alternative route. They are advocates of separation of His person and His attributes. Fazil Shahristani wrote in his book Al-Milal Wan Nehal, “Due to the attributes of knowledge, might, life, sight, will and hearing, God is Aalim, mighty, Hayy, Baseer, Mureed and Sami’.”

The summary of this statement is that according to this school of thought the person and attributes of God are partitioned. Imams of Ithna ‘Ashari School vehemently oppose this corrupted credence.

Hasan Ibn Khalid said that he had heard Imam Ar-Ridha saying, “Our Lord is Aalim, Qadir, Hayy, Samee and Baseer from eternity. I then asked, O, son of the Prophet, there are people who claim that God became Aalim, Qadir, Hayy, Sami’ and Baseer through these faculties. Imam said all those who adhere to this view and claim it to be their religion, they have associated many deities with God, and they have no attendance with our Wilayat. He then repeated that God was always Aalim, Qadir, Hayy, Sami’ and Baseer. Whatever polytheists and their advocates say about God; He is way above those claims.”

A brief rebuttal of this thesis was already present in sermons of Imam (‘a) but a little detail is presented in the following.

If God’s attributes were considered as additional to His person or essence, then the situation would be either one of these two states. These attributes were either with Him from eternity or they were acquired at a later date. In the first case there would be multiple entities which are eternal and you have to assume as many eternals as there were the attributes, and they would share eternity with God, as opposed to the fact that the Eternal or Qadeem can be only one.

In the other scenario there would be two inconsistencies; firstly, His essence would become probable, and it was accepted that probable (Hadith) could not become essential (Wajib) and eternal. Secondly, we have to accept that before (acquiring) these virtues God was deficient in those qualities. Hence, He was neither Aalim, Qadir, Hayy, Sami’ nor Baseer. This rendered the being of God incomplete and dependent on others for perfection. Hence such a personality could not be God.

On the basis of these arguments, we could say that all the eminent attributes of God were not partitioned from His person, instead those were His Essence. These attributes were His person. Therefore, these attributes could not be instrumental in knowing the reality of God. It is impossible for human approach on this subject to gain any ground.

Eminent Attributes Of God Are Infinite

From the above-mentioned discussion it had also been shown as a corollary that the lofty qualities of God were innumerable, because these were His Person or Essence, and His Essence was infinite. This could be proven in two other ways:

• The approval of these attributes was a reason for eminence and their denial was a deficiency. Since God is associated with prominence and freedom from any defects, God’s attributes must also be infinite.

• If we examined this issue critically then Sifat As-Sabootia (qualities of confirmation) were echoed in the Sifat as-Salbia (qualities that could not be in God) as well. This was an agreed point of view of the great masters, including the author of this volume. It had just been mentioned that the secrets of God’s personal attributes were as much of a mystery as His person. We could not identify its boundaries.

Our reasoning and intellect is limited in comprehending the nature of His life and other attributes. Our purpose to confirm Sifat As-Sabootia, is to deny the converse of those qualities. For example, when we said that God is knowledge, we mean to say that He could not be ignorant. Or, with His “might”, we mean that he could not be weak and frail. Therefore, both segments of these attributes were infinite.

Most theological literature had named eight attributes of confirmation (Sifat As-Sabootia) as opposed to eight attributes of negation (Sifat as-Salbia). Mohaqiq al-Tusi first proposed this point of view in Tajrid. Allama Al-Hilli then seconded it in his book of theology, and from thereon it became a popular theme.

Why Only Eight Attributes?

There were two possible reasons for this approach. The scholars might have intended to concentrate on the real aspects of God’s essence instead of other attributes such as Creator, Sustainer etc, which were additional and related to His actions. Upon contemplation, it would appear that all other attributes were basically mirrored in these eight fundamental attributes.

If further thought is given these eight could be reduced to two, which are Knowledge and Might. However, if further pruning is done then all the attributes are echoed in the term Wajib Al-Wujood (Essential), which was complemented by the works of Shaheed al-Thani, who said, “It is sufficient to say about God that He is Essential (Wajib Al-Wujood) Mighty and Knowledgeable.”

The researchers and scholars have done exceptional work in this connection, especially Allama Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita in his book Ad-Deen Al-Islam. I therefore, also submit humbly a few lines in relation to Sifat as-Sabootia and Sifat as-Salbia.

Attributes Of Confirmation (Sifat As-Sabootia)

First Attribute: God Is Mighty And Not Weak

There are a few logical and practical explanations for this attribute.

First Argument

God Himself had claimed that He was powerful over all things.

Second Argument

Frailty and weakness are flaws, whereas firmness and power are strength. Since God is free of all weakness and possesses every virtue at its pinnacle, He is obviously Firm and Powerful.

Third Argument

Is it possible to be the Creator of the Universe and its components, without being Omnipotent? Since it is an established fact that the Universe exists, He must be powerful.

Fourth Argument

The mysterious Universe along with its mind-boggling laws and complexities demand the existence of an All Knowing and a Dominant God.

Fifth Argument

That He empowers others is a proof of His might, as the one who is deficient himself could not be a provider.

Sixth Argument

All the heavenly books, the Prophets and their heirs were unanimous that He was Omnipotent. These people were of exceptional character. Their statement confirmed the prevalence of God’s grace. It clarified corrupted perceptions of those who claimed that a thing could give rise to a Creation.

Sanavia said that God was not capable of depravity, while Nizam asserted that God did not commit evil. Similarly, Balkhi and Hayaee clung to different notes. The first of these hypotheses was about Mujib and Muzter (compelled and constrained), which proposed that things were bound to their premises of action e.g. fire could only produce heat, or ice was constrained to cool things down. However, God is an all-powerful doer. So, the rules of compulsion and constraint are not applicable to Him.

Similarly, the repudiation of other false ideas is also evident. Since it was an established fact that when the claimer was present and its disclaimer was absent, then the claimer prevailed. Here, God was the claimer of His efficacy and potency, which was free of any discrepancy and all things had the capacity to accept the imprint of their Creator.

There was nothing to prevent the Creator to be dominant and powerful. However, it was another matter that despite possessing power and strength over all things, God did not do certain basal things.

Second Attribute: God Is Wise And Not Ignorant

His knowledge embraces everything. He is aware of every component and fraction of an entity. His knowledge remained unchanged before and after a creation. There are a few brief arguments on this issue.

First Evidence

It was mentioned in Qur’an that:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَخْفَىٰ عَلَيْهِ شَيْءٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا فِي السَّمَاءِ

“Allah - surely nothing is hidden from Him in the earth or in the heaven” (3:5).

Not a speck in the Universe was concealed from your Lord.

Second Evidence

Knowledge is a virtue of perfection and ignorance is a mark of deficiency. It is therefore important to believe in perfection and accept Him as all Knowing and wise.

Third Evidence

In His creation we found various capabilities and rationales, some of which were mentioned earlier. This is a sign of His excellence. An ignorant and deficient personality could not produce such firm and balanced creations.

Fourth Evidence

To be able to impart knowledge was a signal for Him being erudite.

Fifth Evidence

Because God was the Creator of everything, how was it possible that the Creator would remain unaware of His design? This argument also repudiated the claims of some philosophers who said that God was not aware of the components of His designs.

Third Attribute: God Is In Command And Is Not Constrained

God does an act, or declines one, in accordance with His will. He is not constrained in His actions in the same way as fire is forced to produce only heat, or the Sun is destined to radiate its energy, or a low viscosity substance is inclined to flow. We now present a few arguments to support this view.

First Line Of Reasoning

God said in the Qur’an,

وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

“Thy Lord does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the matter): Glory to Allah! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!” (28:68).

Second Line Of Reasoning

To be compelled and constrained is a defect and the Persona of God has no room for such a deficiency. In contrast, having absolute control was perfection. Therefore, God must be Independent and Potent as He is the centrepiece of every excellence.

Third Line Of Reasoning

If we did not assign independence and potency to God’s performance, and consider Him as an obliged and constrained executor, then one of the following flaws would emerge.

The outcome of a constrained doer would be associated with constraint, like heat was the constrained outcome of a fire. Or, we would have to consider the Universe as an eternal entity by itself. Or, God could only be a Probable unit of Creation, because He was effective in the cosmos, where the phenomena became manifest by chance or probability. Thus, its cause would be a probable too. Otherwise, there would be a separation of the ensuing entity from its ultimate cause. If these three postulates were unacceptable therefore, we must agree that the Creator was an Independent and Potent performer.

Fourth Line Of Reasoning

The arguments, which prevailed for His strength and power, must be applicable for His attribute of independence also because a constrained Creator could not be called Competent and Omnipotent.

Fourth Attribute: God Is Alive

He was alive from eternity and beyond. There was no end to him. We have presented a few explanations to elucidate this attribute.

First Evidence

He had Himself claimed that He was alive through various Qur’anic Verses.

اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ

“Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal” (3:2).

كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَيْهَا فَانٍ

“All that is on earth will perish” (55:26).

وَيَبْقَىٰ وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَلَالِ وَالْإِكْرَامِ

“But will abide (for ever) the Face of thy Lord - full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour” (55:27).

كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ ۚلَهَ

“Everything will perish save His countenance” (28:88).

Second Evidence

When His Knowledge and Might are established, His life is then recognized as a corollary, because Might is subject to life, and without life these attributes are meaningless.

Third Evidence

A continuous change that is visible in the Universe, tells us that some Living Being is controlling the mechanism of the Universe. The Qur’an said:

تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ الْمُلْكُ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

“Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things” (67:1).

Fourth Evidence

Death is severance of the relationship between matter and spirit. Since God is free from such material constraints, how could death prevail over Him?

Fifth Attribute: God is Mudrik

Idrak is the knowledge of those things, which could be discerned through senses. In other words, it is the knowledge of the constituents. The term knowledge is used in general sense and Idrak is more specific. That is why this attribute is separately mentioned. To explain this, we would give two reasons.

First Reason

لَّا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ

“Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware” (6:103).

Second Reason

When he has knowledge of everything, as proven earlier, then it shows that He must also have the knowledge of all those things, which are perceived by senses. This should include objects as a whole and their constituents.

Sixth Attribute: God Is Truthful And Does Not Lie

Every word and action of God is proper and candid. There is no blending of injustice and deceit with it. The following reasons are in support of this view.

First Reason

God had Himself claimed in the Qur’an that He does not break his promise.

وَعْدَ اللَّهِ حَقًّا وَمَنْ أَصْدَقُ مِنَ اللَّهِ قِيلًا

“… (it is) a promise of Allah, true (indeed), and who is truer of word than Allah?” (4:122).

Second Reason

Telling lies is an abominable act and God’s persona is free of such repulsive acts.

Third Reason

He had cursed liars in his book. If He himself did the same, then He would be under that curse too.

Fourth Reason

Lies are told either due to ignorance or weakness. Someone deceives, either because he is unaware of what he is saying or is compelled to do so to achieve hidden motives. God is neither ignorant nor constrained. Therefore, such an act is not expected from him.

Fifth Reason

Truth and candour are excellence, and God is perfect in all aspects. It is therefore, necessary to believe that God is Just and truthful.

Seventh Attribute: God Is Eternal Not Probable

He is Eternal and is without an end. He had always been in existence and would always remain in existence. He had no beginning and no end.

Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir (‘a) was asked the question as to since when God existed? Imam replied that there was no ‘when’, when He did not exist. So how could one put a time limit on Him?

A brief discussion of this subject is given here.

First Rationale

God said in the Qur’an,

هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

“He is first and He is the last. He is obvious and He is hidden, and He has knowledge over all things” (57:3).

Second Rationale

If He had a beginning, then there must be a time when He was not present. In that case He would need a source to bring Him into existence from the nothingness. Therefore, He would no longer remain Eternal, although He was Eternal.

Third Rationale

If He was not Eternal, He would depend on a Creator for His existence. He would then be Probable and therefore would not be God.

Fourth Rationale

It is an established fact that whoever is eternal would also be infinite. In other words, an Eternal entity would have no beginning and no end. A being dies or ends when its creative source is either eliminated or exhausted. And, for a being (whose existence) was not dependent on any cause, non-existence is not applicable and irrelevant.

Fifth Rationale

Eternal, by definition is an individual, whose being is personal and real. For such a person, non-existence is not a possibility. He would therefore be Eternal.

Eighth Attribute: God is Murid (decides with will) and is Not under Compulsion

Whatever God does is with His personal explicit approval, He is not under any compulsion to say and do anything. His actions are subject to His own Will. He likes his subjects to do upright things and keep away from evil deeds. The arguments, which had been presented for Him to be Omnipotent, was applicable for Him being Murid.

Warning: We include the aspect Murid among the attributes of the Essence of God, in line with common practices. In fact, according to our research this characteristic belongs to God’s attributes of action. We shall discuss this issue in chapter six of this book.

Ninth Attribute: God is Mutakallim

God is Mutakallim (He speaks). Some views on God’s kalam (speech) are:

• God had Himself pronounced that He spoke to Moses and the other prophets.

• All heavenly books including the Qur’an and the other holy revelations have confirmed that God spoke.

• Unless God Himself speaks, the reasons of the creation of the Cosmos would remain a mystery.

Speech is necessary for explaining a point of view. God, who is at the pinnacle of every excellence, needs to communicate, thus it would be essential that He speaks. However, when we refer to God in terms of speech, it does not mean that His mode of speech is the same as that of ours.

Speech is composed of words and sounds. Therefore, it is a function of arz - which is not self-evident, but is sensed through other objects e.g. colour, smell and taste etc. On this basis the expression of a report or a statement is a Hadith or Probable entity. Any thing that would be associated with it would also be a source of probable existence.

Now we know that a Probable existence could not be Essential existence or Wajib al-Wujood (for which existence is essential and extinction is not possible). Therefore, the interpretation of the term Mutakallim for God would be that He could create sound in whatever object He wishes. It would be as He spoke to Moses by creating a sound in the bush on Mount Sinai. One must appreciate that Kalam is Probable, and it is among one of the qualities of action.

Tenth Attribute: God is Sami’ and Baseer

God is Sami’ and Baseer (He hears and Sees)

He hears and sees everything without ears or eyes. Two reasons are briefly presented to support this view. He Himself proclaimed in the Qur’an,

لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ

“There is nothing to resemble Him and He is Sami’ and Baseer” (42:11).

Or:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ بَصِيرٌ

“Certainly, God is Sami’ and Baseer” (22:75).

There is no doubt that His creatures have the capability to hear and speak. If the Creator did not possess these characteristics, then it would mean that the creatures are more perfect than their Creator.

Qur’an was witness to the dialogue of Abraham when He spoke to his uncle Aazar, against idolatry by saying:

…يَا أَبَتِ لِمَ تَعْبُدُ مَا لَا يَسْمَعُ وَلَا يُبْصِرُ وَلَا يُغْنِي عَنكَ شَيْئًا

“O father [Uncle] why do you worship them who can neither listen nor see nor can benefit you” (19:42).

This told that God should be the one who could listen, see and be capable of bestowing benefits and punishing. If God had been incapable of seeing and hearing, Aazar would have negated Abraham by throwing the same argument at him. His silence on this issue proved that he (Aazar) knew that the God to whom Abraham was inviting did not have that flaw.

As stated earlier, sight and hearing do not require physical ears and eyes as otherwise it would mean that He had components. This would mean that He, as a compound entity, was Probable Existence and not Essential Existence. It was therefore, important to believe that God is Sami’ and Baseer, without any dependence on physical parts such as ears or eyes.

Eleventh Attribute: God is Hakeem (Wise)

All His actions are based on wisdom. None of His decisions and pronouncements is without a purpose. A few comments on this subject are mentioned below:

God clearly said in the Qur’an:

فَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌٌ

“…then know that Allah is Mighty, Wise” (2:209).

وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

“... and Allah is Knowing, Wise” (8:71).

أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثًا وَأَنَّكُمْ إِلَيْنَا لَا تُرْجَعُونَ

“What! did you then think that We had created you in vain and that you shall not be returned to Us?” (23:115).

It is a flaw to do anything without a purpose and God is free from such absurdities. At the same time to do things with a purpose is a sign of excellence, which is essential for the Eternal one. Therefore, we had to recognise Him as Wise.

The presence of various wonders in the Universe require its Creator to be absolutely wise.

Twelfth Attribute: God is Adil (Just)

He never abandoned a righteous act or commits an evil one. He does not cause harm or commit injustice to anyone. Its justification is contained within the subject matter of the acts of His creatures, yet we have provided some concrete arguments on this subject.

شَهِدَ اللَّهُ أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ وَأُولُو الْعِلْمِ قَائِمًا بِالْقِسْطِ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ

“Allah bears witness that there is no god but He, and (so do) the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining His creation with justice; there is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise” (3:18).

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَظْلِمُ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّة

“Allah is never unjust in the least degree …” (4:40).

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَظْلِمُ النَّاسَ شَيْئًا َ

“Surely Allah does not do any injustice to men …” (10:44).

وَمَا اللَّهُ يُرِيدُ ظُلْمًا لِّلْعِبَادِ

“…but Allah never wishes injustice to his Servants” (40:31).

God had ordered that justice must prevail among each other, and if His own acts contradicted this, He would then be the target of his own proclamations such as:

أَتَأْمُرُونَ النَّاسَ بِالْبِرِّ وَتَنسَوْنَ أَنفُسَكُمْ َ

“Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget (to practise it)?” (2:44).

God is certainly above this kind of conduct. He had cursed the unjust, and if God was unjust Himself then He would be under the burden of His own curse.

Injustice and malice were despicable acts. God’s sheath of magnificence is free of such blemishes, because if He committed disgraceful acts then such act would be among either one of these four possibilities.

First is that He is unaware of the wickedness of those acts. Second, He knows but is not able to refrain from such acts. Third, He is compelled by the desire to commit such acts. Fourth, He is capable of avoiding such acts and restraining Himself but still do so in vain.

All the four postulates are simply unsound, because in the first case He would apparently be an ignorant being. In the second state He would be incapable and weak. In the third scenario He would be reliant on others. In the fourth situation, He would be seen as committing meaningless acts. As none of these possibilities are likely to be in conformity with the discussions in the previous sections – that He is always Wise and erudite - this leads to an acceptance that He is Just.

Importantly, justice and fairness are distinctive qualities. It is important for the Wajib al-Wujood to possess these attributes.

Discussion Of Some Sifat As-Salbia (Prohibitive Attributes)

These were also called the attributes of Jalal, as opposed to Sifat As-Sabootia, which were also known as Sifat al-Jamal.

By Sifat as-Salbia, we mean those attributes that are beneath the dignity of God. These are deficiencies, which are not expected of the Supreme Being. These characteristics, like the positive attributes are numerous. We have summarised these below.

First Attribute: God Is Not A Compound

God does not have a physical body or organs such as hands, nose, head and eyes or the non-physical components (called Jins and Fasl), which mean gender and its principal or unique quality. As an example, human beings belonged to animal species, as male or female and speech is their principal characteristic (Fasl). The following argument is provided to support this view:

If He was considered to be a compound, then He would be dependent on His constituents. And, the one who is dependent could not be God, since His being is well above such speculations.

If He was supposed to be a compound entity, the situation would then not be free of two constraints. He is either essential or probable. Both of these situations are not applicable. If He was considered to be Essential, then He would not be a true compound, since in a true compound the constituents have to interact with each other, and this dependency is by definition against the concept of an Essential or Wajib.

If He is not dependent, then there would be no use for those constituents. If on the other hand He was Probable, then the combination of those components would also be probable, and could never be realized as the Essential, non-composite entity of God.

Every compound has a configuration, which needs to be balanced. If God was a compound, then He would have needed an arranger to formulate the compound. In such case, the whole definition of God would change, which is not possible.

If He was supposed to be a compound then His existence would have been only after the constituents had existed, since a compound is formed from the chemical bonding of its components. It had been proven in the section dealing with God’s positive attributes that He was the initial one and nothing preceded Him. On the strength of these facts, we have to accept that He is not a compound but a wholesome Primary.

From these statements, it is also manifest that when God does not possess mental components i.e. species (Jins) and its unique characteristics (Fasl), therefore, its true definition is not possible, as final limits are drawn by the combination of Jins and the immediate Fasl.

Second Attribute: God Does Not Possess A Body

Just a few arguments on this attribute are presented below.

All the arguments which had been presented for God not being a compound entity, could be applied to prove that He does not possess a body. Every corporal form is compound in nature; this would also negate Him having a body.

Every physical form depends upon a particular material and shape. Therefore, a dependent entity cannot be Wajib al-Wujood. Every physical form in its essence depends upon space and time. This dependence is a deficiency and a mark of probability, which is against the essence of Wajib al-Wujood.

Several authentic religious traditions have categorically rejected the corporeal identity of God. It is said in Usul al-Kafi on the authority of Hamza Ibn Muhammad that he wrote to Imam Musa Al-Kadhim (‘a) questioning about the corporeal existence of God. Imam replied, “Blessed is He, Who has no parallel and He has no body or shape.”

Third Attribute: God is neither Johar nor Arz

Johar is that which does not require any aid for its presence to become possible. In simple words, it is able to demonstrate itself without assistance. Arz is that which depends on something else for its manifestation e.g. colour or smell etc. The following reasons deny God being either Johar or Arz.

Johar and Arz are the attributes of Probable Existence while God is an Essential Existence. If He was associated either with Johar or Arz, then He would be considered as a Probable.

Johar at its pinnacle depends upon Arz. Arz for its manifestation needs Johar. This dependence is the attribute of a Probable Existence. Therefore, a dependent could never be Essential Existence or Wajib al-Wujood, because Essential as stated in the Qur’an, is a manifestation of independence.

فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ حَمِيدٌ

“Surely, Allah is beyond any praise” (14:8).

Johar is always an entity with physical form. It had been proven that God had no physical dimension. Arz on the other hand, is essential aspect of a corporal being. Therefore, God could neither be Johar or Arz.

Shaykh As-Saduq quoted from a famous tradition, “God possessed neither body nor shape. He is neither Johar nor Arz, but instead He is the Creator of dimensions and shapes including Jawahar (plural of Johar) and Aaraz.”

Fourth Attribute: God Is Not Subject To Events

This mean that God does not go through the mundane experiences like human beings do such as rest, motion, sleep, arousal, dreams, youthfulness or ageing. The following is a discussion on this issue.

All the above traits are associated with a physical being. Since God is not of corporal dimension, He is free of such features. So, He could not be subject to a cycle of events. To be so would be a sign of deficiency and weakness, and God is above any flaw.

All these events and occurrences are the work of God. And, a Creator could not be placed alongside His creatures. As all these traits are probable occurrences, we have to accept that they were absent at some point in time. If God had them, He would have lacked those qualities when they were non-existent. If they got associated with God after their coming into existence, then the situation would not be free from two possibilities. Either His association with those traits was a merit or a deficiency.

With both assumptions two iniquities arise. First is an assumption that there was a time when God did not have those traits. So He would have been deficient at that moment. However, we know that all His acts of excellence were action bound and He was never devoid of His attributes. The second assumption that might have to be accepted is that He relied on someone else to acquire His attributes. The absurdity of this constraint is also evident. It is not possible to associate any acts that demean God to His being.

Fifth Attribute: Hulul

Hulul (God Does Not Enter Into A Physical Dimension)

God does not enter into an object, like water does when poured into a tumbler or a soul into a body. Such was the claim of some Christians and Sufis with regard to Jesus or certain saints. Some ideas in support of this attribute are described below.

Anything, which enters an object, leaves its original place, thus creating a vacant space. However, God is not space bound. Therefore, on intellectual grounds He is present everywhere.

Anything that undergoes a change has a decline. Thus, if Hulul was possible for God, then He would have changed places. His gradual annihilation would become a strong possibility. However, by definition, He is Eternal and permanent and His obliteration is not feasible. For Hulul, the subject must have either Johar or Arz, which is impossible for God to be such.

Sixth Attribute: God Is Not United With Anything

Many erroneous sects such as (some) Sufis have developed this idea to elevate the status of their spiritual leaders. They claimed that God had united with these personalities. They mention this in the couplets from the poems that they chanted:

Mun tu shudam

Tum mun shudi

Man tan shudam

Tu jaan shudi

Ta kus nagoyad Baad azin

Mun deegram

Tu deegri.

I am Thee

You are me

I am body

Thou spirit in me

So that nobody

should say after this

That I am another

And You are different

From me.

This doctrine is redundant due to certain reasons. Union, by definition, is an amalgamation of two things in a way that the bonding does not result in any difference in their volume. Such a union is logically not possible. Hence, how could such a scheme be feasible for God?

If somehow God united with something, then the other object would not free of two constraints. It would either be essential or probable. If it was essential then after uniting, there will be two Wajib al-Wujoods (Essentials), which would be incorrect. If it was Probable then, either the resultant was Wajib (Essential) or Probable. In the first scenario reversion of Probable towards Essential would take place, and for the other setting, reversion of Essential towards Mumkin (Probable) would proceed. This kind of reversion is logically incorrect and the idea that things could unite with God has to be abandoned.

If during a union both entities preserved their identity, then it could not be called a union. If both lost their individuality and a third entity emerged, then also it was not a union. If one component had retained its identity and the other had lost, even then a union had not been achieved. This showed that such a scheme was illogical and unacceptable.

We might consider union in an allegorical sense, when an entity transformed itself into another form by change of state, just as water could transform into vapour. However, such a union is also not admissible for God because such transformation would involve disintegration and formation, which would be against the nature of the Essential Existence.

Seventh Attribute: God Is Not Indigent

God in His person is not reliant upon anyone including time, space, dimensions, instruments, advisor or a deputy. Instead, the entire creation (Alameen) depends on Him. He is independent of all and is in need of no one in the cosmos. The following arguments are relevant to this subject.

He had said in the Qur’an,

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَنتُمُ الْفُقَرَاءُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ

“It is ye that have need of Allah: but Allah is the One Free of all wants, worthy of all praise” (35:15).

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِينَ

“Most surely Allah is Self-sufficient, above (need of) the worlds” (29:6).

اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ

“Allah is absolute independent (of anything)” (112:2).

Dependence is a characteristic of an entity with a probable existence. The (one with) Essential (existence) is the one who is absolute and sovereign. If it was not so, then the Essential would become a transient or a Probable, which is not possible. If He depended upon someone else then this other one would have greater right to be God. In this scenario He would have to cease being a deity. Besides, dependence implies a discrepancy and God is beyond such flaws.

Eighth Attribute: God Has No Specific Space Or Abode

God has no specific place. He is an entity independent of time and space. A few arguments to outline this attribute of God are presented below.

Someone who possesses a body or has physical dimensions needs space. Since He does not have a body, no accommodation (in space) is required. The need for space is a sign of a Mumkin (Probable) entity. The Essential is free of such constraints.

Anything that is surrounded by space and time has a state of rest and motion appended to it. We already have proven that these states are not applicable to God.

Reports from the office of Imams have categorically denied any place of abode for God. Ibn Baseer, on the authority of Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) said, “God cannot be associated with space, time, state of rest and motion, because He is the creator of those properties, and is far above what the prejudiced and ignorant people say about Him.”

Ninth Attribute: God Has No Attribute Additional To His Essence

This condition had been discussed earlier in the text, and we do not intend to repeat it. Further explanation of this subject would be presented in the second chapter.

Tenth Attribute: There Is No Physical State Of Grief Or Enjoyment For God

It is a self-evident fact that an entity, which is free of a physical body, would be free from all related aspects that related to joy or suffering.

Eleventh Attribute: God Is Invisible

God is not visible. He could not be visualised apparently in this world and the hereafter, for the following reasons.

He had himself claimed in the Qur’an:

لَّا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ

“Vision cannot grasp Him and He can grasp vision and He is all knowing and subtle” (6:103).

When Moses requested God to reveal Himself openly, on the insistence of his people then the answer given was:

قَالَ لَن تَرَانِي

“You can never see me” (7:143).

Linguists who understood Arabic could appreciate that the syntax used in the Verse applied to both worlds i.e. on this earth and in the hereafter.

There are six requirements to see something with a naked eye. It should be in front of the observer. It should have a shape. It should have a colour. It should occupy some space. It should not be too far from the observer. There should not be any impediment in the line of vision. The surrounding should be illuminated. So, it is evident that all these conditions apply an aspect that is of a physical nature. It had been proven in earlier sections that the Creator of the Universes has to be free of constraints of a material form. Therefore, it is not possible to see Him.

A thing that could be seen has definite limits. But God has no limits and He circumvents everything. Therefore, how could an object with limited vision assimilate in itself something that overwhelms and exceeds beyond its limits?

A man asked Amir Al-Mu’minin Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) if he had seen his Lord. Imam replied that he would not worship a God, whom he had not seen. The enquirer asked him the state in which he had seen Him. Imam replied: “Pity on you, the vision of the eyes cannot see Him. He cannot be seen except with the inner sight of a believing heart.”

Twelfth Attribute: God Does Not Perform Any Illegitimate Or Evil Act

Some of the arguments about this attribute have been discussed in the section dealing with the Justice of God. One may refer to that section.

Thirteenth Attribute: God Is Unlike Anything, Nor Can An Example Of Him Be Given

Nothing in the universe could be similar to God. There are a few points of interest in regard to this attribute. God had claimed in Qur’an that nothing is similar to Him. It is an established fact that every designer is different from his design and every creator is different in all aspects, from what he creates. As every thing in the universe is a creation of God, He could not be similar to any of those.

Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir (‘a) said, “Anything that one can imagine in his mind, God is beyond it, since anything that could be encased by imagination and intellect is a creation, and no creation is similar to its creator.”

It was narrated in a tradition that God is One that is unlike anything that could be imagined.

Clearing Of A Doubt

These facts also clear an impending doubt, which has been raised by some questioning minds as to how could one believe in a God, who is free of space and dimensions and could not be seen by the eyes.

Since the mind and intellect could not define His state, how is then it possible to reach the depth of His reality and how could He be associated with unsurpassable attributes? Although, such questions have been addressed in the earlier discussions, this objection has a degree of novelty attached to it. Therefore, it appears appropriate for us to tackle this concern here briefly.

When it had been accepted that there were signs of continuous creativity in this Cosmos, and that a created being could not take form without a Creator, an intellectual reasoning begs us to believe in the presence of a Creator that is free of the attributes of His creations. The name of such a creator is God.

We might not be able to reach an understanding of God’s nature just by looking at His Creation. This is in the same way as by looking at a watch it can be concluded that there was someone who had manufactured it, and that he was the master of his trade. However, it might not be possible to deduce the personal attributes of its designer – those, which are not related to designing of the watch such as his facial tone, his height, his age, or his body shape etc.

A lack of answers to such questions does not create doubt about his capability as a designer of that watch. In a similar way, by looking at the complexities of this cosmos, a man is sure in his heart that there is an intelligent Being, free of mundane shackles, and sitting at the pinnacle of all capabilities. He is responsible for these wonders, even if we are at loss to understand His nature. The poet said, “In this material domain, there are many things whose nature is not known to us including those, which are very near to us, such as intellect, understanding, spirit and our own being.”

That is why the Prophet has said, “Whoever has understood his own being has understood God.”

O, the one who questions the nature of God, (do you know) in which part of your body the spirit rests. Have you ever seen it, and observed how it progresses through you?

Discussion On The Oneness Of God

There is no one who is comparable to God in His essence, His attributes of Person or actions, including for the act of worship. He is unique in all aspects and this was the forte of Islam, since a general belief in a deity is common in all religions of the world, which still persisted today. That was why the Qur’an said:

وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّه

“If you ask them who has created Heavens and the Earth, they will definitely reply God” (39:38).

The only downside in their belief is about the oneness of God, which is either totally absent from their doctrine or if present, flawed. Some of them believe in the duality of God, some others are on a mind-boggling trinity track, and the rest involved in the worship of a huge number of gods. This is why their complete estrangement with Islam is on the very issue of pure Tawhid. The Qur’an pointed out to this fact in Surah Az-Zumar:

وَإِذَا ذُكِرَ اللَّهُ وَحْدَهُ اشْمَأَزَّتْ قُلُوبُ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ وَإِذَا ذُكِرَ الَّذِينَ مِن دُونِهِ إِذَا هُمْ يَسْتَبْشِرُونَ

“And when Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are repelled, and when those (whom they worship) beside Him are mentioned, behold! they are glad” (39:45).

In Makkah, the only crime of Prophet Muhammad (S) was that he wanted them to accept God without partners. It was revealed in the Qur’an:

وَقَالَ الْكَافِرُونَ هَٰذَا سَاحِرٌ كَذَّابٌ

“... and the disbelievers say: This is an enchanter, a liar. What! makes he the gods a single Allah? A strange thing is this, to be sure!” (38:4).

أَجَعَلَ الْآلِهَةَ إِلَٰهًا وَاحِدًا إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ

“What! makes he the gods a single Allah? A strange thing is this, to be sure!” (38:5).

Anyhow, the sparkling and clean-cut Tawhid that Islam has propagated had no parallel in other religions. Their concept of the monotheism lacked in all disciplines, including the unity of the Essence and Attributes (belonging to the Essence and actions) of God, as well as the unity in terms of Worship. According to the Qur’an, their Tawhid was flawed:

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ذَٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن قَبْلُ َ

“Jews say that Ozair is the Son of God, while the Christians claim Jesus. They follow the footsteps of the earlier wrongdoers” (9:30).

The Magians believed in Yazdan and Ahraman as their two gods. The Aryan Samaj, though less than other Hindus, had claimed a new trinity by considering matter and spirit eternal with God. Islam on the other hand is so strict on Tawhid that it had made polytheism a cardinal sin, for which there is no reprieve. The Qur’an pronounced:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاء

“God will never pardon that anything should be associated to him, but the rest of the sins He might, as He desires” (4:48).

Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari related from the Prophet who said, “Anyone who died, while practicing polytheism, must find his place in Hell. Paradise is the chosen place for those who keep away from polytheistic views, because God has made the fire of Hell redundant for the followers of Tawhid.”

Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) related a tradition from the Prophet, on the authority of his family that the Prophet had said, “The price of paradise is acceptance of the unity of God.”

Allama Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the Prophet (S) said, “I swear by God, who sent me as a warner and a Messenger of good tidings, that He would never dispatch the followers of Tawhid into Hell, instead these people would intercede with God (with His permission) and He will accept their recommendations.”

Explanation

Two points must be made clear here. The people, who have been recommended in this Hadith, were those who had their Tawhid based on the teachings of Imam (‘a) of the Ahl al-Bayt and not those who had obtained Tawhid from Iblis. Ahmed Ghazali said, “Those who do receive Tawhid from Iblis are Mulhids (who seeks partners with God) and Zindiqs (Magians).”

A mind must not infer from these Ahadith that the only requirement for entering Paradise is the acceptance of the unity of God, and the good deeds are superfluous in this regard. Instead, one should keep in view the narration of Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) in which, after declaring blessings of the statement of unity, he said that those blessings were tagged with certain terms and conditions, and one of the conditions was the acceptance of his Imamate and obedience. Anyhow compliance with Satan in matters of Tawhid was an opposite thing.

We would now discuss the summary of various forms of Tawhid below, with supporting facts.

The Oneness Of The Person Of God

The following are supporting arguments for this concept.

The manner, in which universe manifest the presence of its Creator, and the laws that govern this system, their permanence and interaction with each other, certainly point to its Creator and Manager being one and only one.

Just as the body parts that are numerous but their organization together constitute a man, the entire Universe from its far corners into the depths of the planet Earth is organized to work according to a plan, and this is a proof that its principal administrator is God alone. If there was more than one God then this balance would be impossible to be reached. Instead, differences and frictions would have been more evident.

Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) used this argument on the query of Hisham Ibn Al-Hakam. He said that if there were more than one God, the universe would be destroyed.

From Adam to the last Messenger, all the Prophets have been unanimously saying and preaching that the true God was one and no one shared power with Him. They suffered (from persecutions), but continued to advocate the same.

Qur’an, which is the last testament of God, had declared on various occasions that there is no god but God, and there was no deity worthy of worship other than Him. Although, affirmations of various Prophets were cited in the book, but to summarise, the Qur’an said:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا نُوحِي إِلَيْهِ أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا أَنَا فَاعْبُدُونِ

“[O Messenger] And We did not send before you any messenger but We revealed to him that there is no god but Me, therefore serve Me” (21:25).

This is not just the Qur’anic argument which might be refuted by a disbeliever (of the Qur’an), but it is also a historical fact that every incoming Prophet conveyed the same message. The natural consequence of this discussion is that God is one and only one. If it was not so, then the representatives and messengers of other gods would also have claimed allegiance from the people.

Imam Ali (‘a) said, “O My son Hasan, know that if there were partners with God, then their messengers would have also approached you, and you would have definitely seen some signatures of their kingdom, and you would have known about their attributes and qualities. Therefore, He is unique as He has described Himself, and no one shares power with Him.”

If we assumed two Gods, then both of them would have to be equally powerful. However, it was possible that if one of them wanted to create something, the second one would be capable of opposing his efforts. The first God then - due to his weakness - would no longer be a contender for this job, and the other one would establish himself on the strength of his credentials. The same arguments would apply in the case of the second one challenging the first god, since independence and power are essential requirements for a god.

A Magian once approached Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) and asked him why it was not permissible to have more than one God? He replied that according to his (Magian) religion there were two gods. If this was true, then the state of affairs would not be free of three constraints: either both gods would be eternal and powerful, or both of them would be weak or one would be strong and the other, weak. Each of these possibilities was flawed.

If both were strong then why had not one of them exerted his full authority and secured the majesty alone. It was recognized that permanence and power were the pinnacles of a ruler’s attributes. If both were weak then they would not be suitable to be classed as gods anyway. If the third scenario prevailed, then god would be only one – the one who was the strongest.

If there were two gods then both of them would be share the same desires and plans or contradict each other. This would give rise to the possibility of clash and conflict. However, when we cast a glance at the mechanism of the universe, we would find the possibility of only one God to be plausible and harmonious. The return of days and nights and the rising and setting of the Sun had been well measured. There is harmony and balance built in the system that convince that the control and management is of one and only one God.

Imam’s arguments were undoubtedly strong and convincing but a disillusioned mind might raise a new objection that there might be two powerful gods, which had decided to work in full harmony and this balance in the universe might be due to their full cooperation. To answer this doubt, we would have to ask - was the resolve and power of both sufficient or was it inadequate for creating and running the universe, or was one capable and the other inept?

If the first option is accepted, then it would result in the stationing of two permanent causes (illatain) on a single output (malool). This means that one impression results from two permanent effects, which is impossible.

Moreover, if one God was sufficient to run the universe, the presence or absence of the other God would be immaterial. Therefore, if one’s presence or absence did not make any difference, then how could he be a god? The Essential is the one who had all subservient to Him while He himself is free of any dependence.

In the second argument, when two gods were bound to consult each other than this shortcoming would cause both to be classed as merely probable (existence) and not capable of being god. Therefore, we have to exercise a third option in which, God is one and He is not weak and powerless.

If two gods were assumed, then we had to explore another possibility as well. If, at a particular time, one god wanted to do a job e.g. it wants to create John and the other one wants to oppose it, then the state of affairs has three limitations. Both would achieve their desires, which is impossible, since two opposites could not unite. One would succeed and the other would fail.

Then god would be the one who had succeeded. Or else, both might continue to strive and struggle, in which case the entire management of the universe would suffer. When all these possibilities are proven to be wrong, then the assumption of more than one god, naturally collapses. This was expressed in Qur’an as:

لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَاَ

“If there were any god besides Allah, then the Universe would be in disorder” (21:22).

The reality is that it is beyond all doubts that to be the sole manager of the affairs of the universe - independent of anyone - is the apex of superiority. To share power with someone else is a sign of weakness and deficiency. Since God is above all flaws, it is important to believe in an all-powerful God, exclusive master of the universe. That was why Qur’an said,

وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَىٰ إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا ‎

“Anyone who associates others with God; commits a cardinal sin” (4:48).

As explained in an earlier argument that all Prophets and messengers - who claimed to represent God – brought a single message that there was one God, who did not share his realm with any other. This point of view had three aspects to it. Either the dispatcher of these Prophets i.e. God was truthful in this pledge and so were His representatives or, He was a liar. Further to this, His message would both qualify the rationale of Tawhid and lead to abandoning of the deities. Or, He would have told his messengers that there were two gods, but his messengers changed the message and pronounced there to be one God instead of two.

In this line of argument there are two further complications. It is against the candour of prophethood, while their sinlessness is a universally accepted fact or God would be blamed that He supported liars with miracles, which is against His dignity. Therefore, when all the above suggestions are wrong, we have to admit that God is one.

If we accepted the “two-god theory”, then the possibilities are that either each god needs the other, or each is independent of the other or one of them is independent of the other. As all three scenarios are false, we are left with no god. It is therefore proven that all those who associate others with God does not have any rational argument to support their statement other than mere conjectures, as described by the Qur’an.

Statement On The Oneness Of God And His Attributes

This means that the real attributes of God are not separate from His Essence. So there was no partition at any time between God’s Essence and His attributes. All other beings, including the Prophets, Imams, angels and saints - their characteristics were ‘in addition’ to their persons. No one (other than God) is exception to this rule.

Some years ago, one of my articles titled “The Categories of Tawhid” was published in a number of national papers. It was then distributed as a pamphlet, wherein different aspects of Tawhid were discussed in some detail, a summary of which had been presented in the previous pages of this book. I had stated in the article that God’s virtues are ‘personal’, whereas our characteristics are ‘in addition’ to our being. In other words, there is a partition between our essence and our attributes. There was a time when we did not have these traits, and when God granted us tools, we acquired those qualities, as mentioned in the Qur’an,

وَاللَّهُ أَخْرَجَكُم مِّن بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

“And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers knowing nothing, and gave you hearing and sight and hearts that haply ye might give thanks” (16:78).

Then after explaining a few of God’s attributes, I wrote, “Therefore, no one shares this type of Tawhid with God, as the characteristics of every creature are acquired traits, including that of Prophet Muhammad (S), just as it was mentioned in the Qur’an:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَانُ وَلَٰكِن جَعَلْنَاهُ نُورًا نَّهْدِي بِهِ مَن نَّشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا وَإِنَّكَ لَتَهْدِي إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ

“And thus did We reveal to you an inspired book by Our command. You did not know what the Book was, nor (what) the faith (was), but We made it a light, guiding thereby whom We please of Our servants; and most surely you show the way to the right path” (42:52).

Some of the scholars inadvertently accused me that I had included the Prophet in the same league as pointed out by the former Qur’anic Verse:

وَاللَّهُ أَخْرَجَكُم مِّن بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

“And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers knowing nothing, and gave you hearing and sight and hearts that haply ye might give thanks” (16:78).

And they quoted the previous Verse:

مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَان

“You did not know what the Book was, nor (what) the faith (was)…” (42:52).

to prove their case against me. They were pointing out at my alleged mistake. They tried to correct the situation in their own way by proposing that there was a difference between personal attributes and exclusively personal attributes. They advocated that the Prophet’s knowledge was his own specifically, in the same manner that an object possessed specific dimensions of length, width and height, or, like the radiation of light from the Sun, or the ability of fire to burn was additional to their own being, these traits cannot be separated from their essence.

They continued to argue that while the attributes of the Imams were external to their essence, they could not be separated from their being. They then quoted the above referenced Qur’anic Verse in support of their statement:

مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَان

“You did not know what the Book was, nor (what) the faith (was)…” (42:52).

They proposed that it was an undefined proposition (quzia al-Saleba), which did not require the subject of the proposition to be specified. Its applicability was true even if the issue (principle) of the proposition was absent or undecided. For example, the statement “David is not standing” is true whether David is present or absent. Therefore, in the light of the given example the meaning of the Verse would have been: “(O, Prophet just as your body is our gift, similarly, faith and knowledge is our award to you, however, when you were not present) you did not know the nature of faith or the book.”

Their argument is redundant due to certain reasons. They are not honest in reproducing my quote. I have never written explicitly or implicitly that the Qur’anic Verse:

وَاللَّهُ أَخْرَجَكُم مِّن بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

“And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers knowing nothing, and gave you hearing and sight and hearts that haply ye might give thanks” (16:78).

was meant for the Prophet. A statement to implicate this was a deliberate effort to mislead people against me. How could such a person who believed in the words of the Prophet when he said: “He was the Prophet when Adam was between water clay”, be accused of this offence? Who would say that the above quoted Verse had included the Prophet among the ordinary?

Anyone who casted an ordinary look at my work would immediately recognise that the first Qur’anic Verse was for the ordinary people, whereas, the second Verse:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِنْ أَمْرِنَا

“And thus did We reveal to you an inspired book by Our command...” (42:52).

Was revealed to honour the Prophet.

Even if the difference - which exists between personal and exclusively personal attributes - was accepted, the knowledge of the Prophets could not be termed just as the knowledge of their own person or essence. This is invalid on the following grounds.

An attribute, which is part of one’s nature is not subject to variation. Variation is possible only for the acquired knowledge of the revered (prophets), as mentioned in the books of logic.

According to Silm al-’Uloom, variation is neither a state nor an attachment, but it is when the people were wrapped in inconsistencies. That variation in the Prophet’s knowledge happens is evident from the Qur’an, where it is said:

وَقُل رَّبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا ‎

“O, God enhance my knowledge” (20:114).

Books of Ahadith described in detail the changes in knowledge that took place with the advent of various prophets over a long period of time. Similarly, it could be said about Moses:

وَلَمَّا بَلَغَ أَشُدَّهُ وَاسْتَوَىٰ آتَيْنَاهُ حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ

“And when he (Moses) attained his maturity and became full grown, We granted him wisdom and knowledge...” (28:14).

For further information, reference could be made to Tafsir al-Saafi and Majma’ Al-Bayan.

In Surah Yusuf, reference was made to the Prophet (S):

نَحْنُ نَقُصُّ عَلَيْكَ أَحْسَنَ الْقَصَصِ بِمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ وَإِن كُنتَ مِن قَبْلِهِ لَمِنَ الْغَافِلِينَ

“We narrate to you the best of narratives, by Our revealing to you this Qur’an, though before this you were certainly one of those who did not know” (12:3).

There are several other Verses in the Qur’an, where the difference between the Prophet’s person and his attributes is evident, and on the basis of these facts, how could we make knowledge (ilm) as the integral part of his essence?

This ilm or knowledge was the consequence of Prophetic or Imamic spirit, which was called Ruh Al-Qudus. This spirit was not a personal attribute of the Prophets and Imams. It was granted to them after their creation, which was evident from multitude of Ahadith. Then how could the knowledge that was an offshoot from this, be integrated with their person or essence?

Again, it is true that an undefined proposition (quzia saleba) is applicable when the anticipated (object) is withdrawn or absent but it is also relevant when the subject is removed from its context. However, to decide whether these suggestions are valid, one has to look into the facets of the evidence provided.

The problem is not an intellectual exercise, but a practical proposition. A reference has to be made to the true interpreters of Qur’an to understand the nature of the problem at this point in time. By probing into the narrations of the Imams, it appears that there was a time that the person of the Prophet existed but he was not aware of the knowledge of the book3.

It was related from Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a), in the interpretation of the Qur’anic Verse quoted above from Surah Yusuf, that there was a time when the Prophet did not have the knowledge of ‘Ilm al-Kitab and faith, until God granted him the Spirit, which was mentioned in this Verse. This cleared the air that there was a time when the Prophet was present but he was not aware of the things mentioned above.

It must be born in mind that this scenario was related to a time before the Prophet’s apparent arrival in this world. Therefore, the statement that this was an undefined proposition minus the subject, was nothing but tafseer bi’ r-rai or a personal interpretation of Qur’an.

Allama Sarsavi had written an authentic volume, titled Kashf Al-Asrar, on the predicaments of the Book and its Recitation, in which a detailed analysis of this Verse had been presented. He accepted that in between the spiritual creation of the Prophet and the bestowal of the Prophetic spirit, there was a period when he was not aware of the Book and wisdom.

It was insignificant to indulge into the duration of this period of not knowing or whether this phase was time or place bound. However, while staying within the precautionary limits, it is obvious from the Qur’anic Verse that there was a time with the Prophet, when the sequence of Prophetic revelations had not commenced with him. With this conclusion, we may now return to our original topic.

Discussion On The Unity Of Actions Or Deeds (Tawhid Al-Faali)

This refers to the acts of creation at which time, no human had a personal command or authority. Creation of life, provision of sustenance or providing relief from ailments and illnesses, causing death, or reviving the dead are specific to God alone. No one shares with Him in these acts. This view was supported by numerous Qur’anic Verses and Prophetic traditions.

We would discuss these issues, when we reach the theme of ghulu and tafweez i.e. exaggeration and delegation in the present book. Several Qur’anic Verses are quoted here to support this argument.

هُوَ اللَّهُ الْخَالِقُ الْبَارِئُ الْمُصَوِّرُ لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىُٰ

“He is Allah, the Creator, the Shaper out of naught, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names” (59:24).

This Verse proved that Only God was the Creator and Designer.

أَهُمْ يَقْسِمُونَ رَحْمَتَ رَبِّكَ نَحْنُ قَسَمْنَا بَيْنَهُم مَّعِيشَتَهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا نَ

“Is it they who apportion thy Lord's mercy? We have apportioned among them their livelihood in the life of the world...” (43:32).

اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ ثُمَّ رَزَقَكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيكُمْ هَلْ مِن شُرَكَائِكُم مَّن يَفْعَلُ مِن ذَٰلِكُم مِّن شَيْءٍ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

“Allah is He Who created you and then sustained you, then causeth you to die, then giveth life to you again. Is there any of your (so-called) partners (of Allah) that doeth aught of that? Praised and Exalted be He above what they associate (with Him)!” (30:40).

أَمْ جَعَلُوا لِلَّهِ شُرَكَاءَ خَلَقُوا كَخَلْقِهِ فَتَشَابَهَ الْخَلْقُ عَلَيْهِمْ قُلِ اللَّهُ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ الْوَاحِدُ الْقَهَّارُ

“Or they have appointed associates with God, who have created things similar to those created by God, which made identification of those things difficult for them. Say God is the creator of everything. He is the One Almighty” (13:16).

وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ ‎

“And your Lord creates and chooses whom He pleases...” (28:68).

أَمَّن يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ وَمَن يَرْزُقُكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَإِلَٰهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ

“Is not He (best) Who produceth creation, then reproduceth it, and Who provideth for you from the heaven and the earth? Is there any Allah beside Allah?” (27:64).

وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ اللَّهُ بِضُرٍّ فَلَا كَاشِفَ لَهُ إِلَّا هُوَ وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ بِخَيْرٍ فَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

“If God casts you an affliction, then who is there to relieve you from it other than God or if He provides you with a blessing (no one can take that away from you). He has complete dominance over all things” (6:17).

This showed that only God could provide (blessing) for you or cause you harm.

قُلْ مَن يُنَجِّيكُم مِّن ظُلُمَاتِ الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ تَدْعُونَهُ تَضَرُّعًا وَخُفْيَةً لَّئِنْ أَنجَانَا مِنْ هَٰذِهِ لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الشَّاكِرِينَ

“Say: Who is it that delivers you from the dangers of the land and the sea (when) you call upon Him (openly) humiliating yourselves, and in secret: If He delivers us from this, we should certainly be of the grateful ones.” (6:63).

قُلِ اللَّهُ يُنَجِّيكُم مِّنْهَا وَمِن كُلِّ كَرْبٍ ثُمَّ أَنتُمْ تُشْرِكُونَ

“Say: Allah delivers you from them and from every distress, but again you set up others [with Him]” (6:64).

أَمَّن يُجِيبُ الْمُضْطَرَّ إِذَا دَعَاهُ وَيَكْشِفُ السُّوءَ وَيَجْعَلُكُمْ خُلَفَاءَ الْأَرْضِ أَإِلَٰهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ

“Who is He, who receives the indignant, when he cries to Him and removes the hurt and appoints you the caretaker of the Earth? Is their any other god besides God?” (27:62).

These Verses suggest that the Receiver and Responder for all supplications is God.

الَّذِي خَلَقَنِي فَهُوَ يَهْدِينِ

“Who created me, then He has shown me the way” (26:78).

وَالَّذِي هُوَ يُطْعِمُنِي وَيَسْقِينِ

“And He Who gives me to eat and gives me to drink” (26:79).

وَإِذَا مَرِضْتُ فَهُوَ يَشْفِينِ

“And when I am sick, then He restores me to health” (26:80).

وَالَّذِي يُمِيتُنِي ثُمَّ يُحْيِينِ

“And He Who will cause me to die, then give me life” (26:81).

This suggested that Creator, Sustainer and Curer was God, and no one else.

أَلَا لَهُ الْخَلْقُ وَالْأَمْرُ تَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ

“… surely His is the creation and the command: blessed is Allah, the Lord of the worlds” (7:54).

قُلْ أَفَاتَّخَذْتُم مِّن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ لَا يَمْلِكُونَ لِأَنفُسِهِمْ نَفْعًا وَلَا ضَرًّا

“Say: Do you take then besides Him guardians who do not control any profit or harm for themselves?” (13:16).

وَمَا بِكُم مِّن نِّعْمَةٍ فَمِنَ اللَّهِ َ

“And whatever favour (bestowed) on you it is from Allah…” (16:53).

وَاتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِهِ آلِهَةً لَّا يَخْلُقُونَ شَيْئًا وَهُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ

“And they have taken besides Him gods, who do not create anything while they are themselves created…” (25:3).

وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُ تَقْدِيرًا

“...it is He who created all things, and ordered them in due proportions” (25:2).

أَمَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَأَنزَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَنبَتْنَا بِهِ حَدَائِقَ ذَاتَ بَهْجَةٍ مَّا كَانَ لَكُمْ أَن تُنبِتُوا شَجَرَهَا أَإِلَٰهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ بَلْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ يَعْدِلُونَ

“Who is the One, Who has created Heavens and Earth, and then sent water for you from the sky and then produced blooming gardens? It was not within your capacity to initiate those trees. Is there anyone else other than God? But these people are deviant from the truth” (27:60).

لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَفَأَنَّىٰ تُؤْفَكُونَ

“There is no god but He, so where are you wandering aimlessly?” (40:62).

This shows that the creator and sustainer is God.

لِّلَّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ يَهَبُ لِمَن يَشَاءُ إِنَاثًا وَيَهَبُ لِمَن يَشَاءُ الذُّكُورَ

“The sovereignty of Heavens and the Earth rests with God. He creates whatever He desires. He bestows daughters to whom He wishes and gives boys to whom He desires” (42:49).

اللَّهُ لَطِيفٌ بِعِبَادِهِ يَرْزُقُ مَن يَشَاءُ

“Gracious is Allah to His servants: He gives Sustenance to whom He pleases…” (42:19).

‏ قُلِ اللَّهُمَّ مَالِكَ الْمُلْكِ تُؤْتِي الْمُلْكَ مَن تَشَاءُ وَتَنزِعُ الْمُلْكَ مِمَّن تَشَاءُ وَتُعِزُّ مَن تَشَاءُ وَتُذِلُّ مَن تَشَاءُ بِيَدِكَ الْخَيْرُ إِنَّكَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ ‎

“Say O, God; Sovereign of the Universe, You award kingdom to anyone You desire, and remove the writ of leadership from anyone You wish. You promote honour and dignity of anyone You choose, and defame whom You desire. All the approvals are in your possession and You are powerful over all things.” (3:26).

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ هُوَ ٱلرَّزَّاقُ ذُو ٱلۡقُوَّةِ ٱلۡمَتِینُ

“God is He; who gives all sustenance. Lord of power [forever]” (51:58).

These Verses made it clear that the provider of sustenance is God and He is all-powerful.

This is such a sensitive moment in the chapter of Tawhid, where many people, in the love of their mentors, cross the defined boundaries and indulge in practices, which make them mushriks, instead of monotheists. Imams (‘a) had warned us of this danger and contested any assertions in which some of their followers claimed that they (the Imams) share those attributes which are exclusive for God.

There were so many Ahadith available on this subject and we would mention those in the chapter related to exaggeration and delegation. We only mentioned a couple of Ahadith here to clear the issue.

Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) used to supplicate in the following manner in his prayers, “O God, providence is thy character, and Thou have the honour to be worshipped. O God, curse those who have minimised thy magnificence, and also those, who like Christians, proposed corporal configurations for Thou.

O God, we are thy servants and the sons of those who were thy servants. We are, in our person, not capable, either of any gain or loss for ourselves, or having any control over life and death or life after death (of others).

O God, whoever believe that we are the providers and that we create, then we are displeased with them in the same way Jesus was with some of his (Christian) followers.

O God, whatever they speculate about us, we have not endorsed them on those matters. Therefore, Thou should not question us on those matters and forgive us for their conjectures.”

Our present Imam had best described the station of these people as intermediaries between people and God. It was reported in Ihtijaj al-Tabari on the authority of Ahmed Ibn Dalal that once the discussion on the issue of “delegation of power” was pursued hotly among the Shi’as. Some people were advocating that God had delegated powers of creation, provision of sustenance, life and death to Muhammad (S) and his family, while the others opposed it.

One of the Shi’as told them that there was no point bickering among themselves, and that they should go and ask the representative of the last Imam and seek his opinion on that issue. They approached the Shaykh and the request was made to the Imam, and the following reply was received: “It is God Who has created people and He is responsible for their sustenance, since He is neither an object nor does He enter into any object, but He is All Hearing and All seeing. The Imams, on the other hand, request God and he creates. They ask for subsistence and He allocates to honour their request.”

Statement On The Observing Tawhid (Oneness Of God) In Worship

The meaning of this tawhid is that we should not associate anyone in the worship of God. The idiom, La ilaha illa Allah demands from us that there is no god but God. No one is worthy of being worshipped other than Him.

The idol worshippers were called mushrikun (polytheist), on the grounds that they used to worship and prostrate before man-made idols. Although they never called them gods, they believed that a mode of reverence towards them could bring them near to God.

Allah expressed their viewpoint in the following words:

وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَىٰ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ فِي مَا هُمْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ

“…and (as for) those who take guardians besides Him, (saying), We do not serve them save that they may make us nearer to Allah, surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ…” (39:3).

Despite their admission that they did not treat those idols as gods, still in the Islamic jurisprudence they were classed as mushriks:

أَيُشْرِكُونَ مَا لَا يَخْلُقُ شَيْئًا وَهُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ

“Do you associate with God those who cannot create a thing, but instead they are themselves created by others” (7:191).

وَلَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ لَهُمْ نَصْرًا وَلَا أَنفُسَهُمْ يَنصُرُونَ

“They can neither help themselves nor the others” (7:192).

وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَٰهًا وَاحِدًا لَّا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ

“… yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He …” (9:31).

It is clear that the worship of anyone other than God with whatever intentions, even a prostration out of respect, is classified as shirk in worship. God had asked that He should be worshiped with purity. He further declared in Surah Al-Kahf:

فَمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو لِقَاءَ رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا وَلَا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَدًا

“Therefore, anyone who hopes to be in the presence of God (in the Hereafter), it is imperative for him to do pious deeds and not to include anyone else in His worship” (18:110).

At another place in Surah Al-Nun, it was declared:

وَاعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَلَا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا

“And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him …” (4:36).

God and His representatives did not allow (wish for) adoration, even if it was in the worship of God, where there is a degree of ostentation and element of show off or public display. God revealed in the Qur’an:

وَإِذَا قَامُوا إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ قَامُوا كُسَالَىٰ يُرَاءُونَ النَّاسَ وَلَا يَذْكُرُونَ اللَّهَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا

“... and when they stand up to prayer they stand up sluggishly; they do it only to be seen of men and do not remember Allah save a little” (4:142).

It was related in Usul al-Kafi, on the commentary of the Qur’anic Verse:

فَمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو لِقَاءَ رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا وَلَا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَدًا

“Therefore, anyone who hopes to be in the presence of God (in the Hereafter), it is imperative for him to do pious deeds and not to include anyone else in His worship” (18:110).

It was stated from Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir (‘a), who said that if a man performed an act of piety, with intentions other than pleasing God, then that man had committed shirk. It was mentioned in various Prophetic traditions that hypocrisy and pretence in worship was shirk and such an act was not acceptable with God.

In the light of these statements, no doubt is left on the prayers and stipends of those people, who consider thought of their murshid or mentor to be essential during the worship of God. Is this not an obvious worship of their saints?

This is no different from the ignorance and wayward ways of those Shi’as, who found it necessary to concentrate on the persons of Imam Ali and other Imams, during their prayers and even claim that the person addressed by the Qur’anic Verse,

إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ

We worship thee and seek thy help (1:5).

was Imam Ali.

We have learnt about these practices by referring to the speeches of various Shi’a speakers of Punjab, who were influenced by the views of preachers of ghaali and mofawweza (people who exaggerate and deliberate).

There are a few basic principles of monotheism and it is essential to stick to those rules, without which the faith is incomplete. Therefore, a true believer is the one who embraces the factual doctrine of i.e. oneness of God in the essence, oneness of God in attributes, oneness of God in submission and oneness of God in acts of worship.

Brief Discussion Of The Various Stages Of Tawhid

Apart from the types of Tawhid that we discussed in the preceding sections, there are other stages of Tawhid that are significant for enhancing the faith. One of those stages is Tawhid fi Tawakkul, which mean that all believers must have faith in God, in all affairs, as stated by the Qur’an:

وَعَلَى اللَّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ

“In Allah let believers put their trust!” (14:11).

Or:

وَمَن يَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ فَهُوَ حَسْبُهُ

“... and whoever trusts in Allah, He is sufficient for him…” (65:3).

In Maani al-Akhbar, a detailed Hadith was quoted, which explained the concept of confidence. The Prophet (S) said, “It is to believe that no creature can harm, benefit or impede anything from you. In fact, one has to disregard people completely to the extent of disappointment. At this stage any act of a servant is purely for the sake of God. He does not expect anything, but from God. He is not afraid of anyone, but God, and he has expectations from none other than God.”

Tawhid Fi Amr Wa An-Nahi

Real authority of permission or negation is with God. Prophets and their legatees simply came to implement commands of God. Therefore, where a conflict between submission to God and that to His subject arises, God’s commands must be preferred. Imam Ali said, “Where disobedience to God is apparent, the obedience to people is not permissible. One should realise that harm or benefit could only come from God.”

It is therefore, essential for believers not to be fearful of anyone other than God.

Tawhid Of Obedience

Those people whom God does not command to be followed, must not be complied with and they should not lead the nation. Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) said in this respect, “People have been commanded to seek our awareness, obey our orders and refer the matters to us. If they perform fasting, offer prayers, conform to the oneness of God, but still intend not to turn to us then they will be categorized as Mushrik.”4

God spoke in the Surah Yusuf:

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُم بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ

“Many people show their belief in God, while they are still committing shirk” (12:106).

It was mentioned in Tafsir al-Saafi, with reference from Tafsir al-Ayyashi that Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq said that the above quoted Verse of Surah Yusuf was addressed to those people who said that if such and such person was not there, he would have died or he would have been in great trouble, or his family or tribe would have suffered. They did not realise that by making these statements, they included others in having the authority of God. The provision of sustenance and averting mishaps are purely the tasks of God. A person then suggested that it could be said, that if God had not helped him through that person, he would have died. Imam concurred with that reply.

A View Of Firqa Al-Mujassama (A Sect That Proposes A Body For God)

This sect is known as Firqa al-Mujassema wa Mushabba, which is an offshoot of Sunni group. The key assertion of this sect was that it suggests that God has a frame and body parts such as hands, feet and eyes etc.

This sect came into existence at the end of first century after Hijra. The founders of this sect were Kehmish and Ahmed Hajemi. One of the exponents of this group Daud Zahari, who claimed that people should not ask him about the beard and sexual organs of God, but any other information was readily available for which he would gladly help.5 There were several other books available, which shed further information about this sect, such as, Al-Fasl Ibn Hazem and Al-Mazah al-Ashari.

Our Imams (‘a) vehemently opposed their ideas and labelled them as mushrikana (polytheistic) thoughts. We quote a section of a very long Hadith here.

Yunus Ibn Zabyan quoted from Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) that he questioned him regarding those people who proposed body parts for God. Imam was resting on a pillow and he suddenly sat upright and said, “Those who configure in their mind that God has a face are mushrik and one who thinks that He has body parts - like the creatures - is an infidel and you must neither accept their evidence nor eat animals their slaughter. God is way above such speculations, where it is attempted to establish a similarity between human beings and Him”.

The essence of this discussion is that anyone who proposes body parts for God is a mushrik.

Corrupt ideas of these people spread like wild fire among the simple Muslims, because there were some allegorical Verses in Qur’an, which could lead a lay person to draw incorrect inferences. Even some intellectuals, who are not capable of extracting the true interpretation, are unable to differentiate between the apparent and symbolic meanings of those words. Therefore, wherever these words appear, they are interpreted in the literal sense, which propose body parts for God. Thus, their tawhid is corrupted and their hereafter is ruined. It is therefore, necessary for us to talk about some of those allegorical Qur’anic Verses.

Meaning Of The Allegorical Verses

We are not discussing at this moment the reasons why these Ayats (Verses) are present in the Qur’an. We only want to express the importance of the subject matter of such Verses, and to indicate who can actually interpret these passages.

According to linguists, a text which is multidimensional in meaning and makes the reader confused about the intended meaning of the author, is called Mutashabih. Not everyone is qualified to give its true meanings. No one other than God Himself, Prophet (S) and his progeny can understand the meaning of such Verses.

Since an allegorical text has more than one meaning attached to it, not everyone is qualified to understand its true nature, however competent they may be in that language. Such a text can be truly interpreted only by the author or by the person whom has been informed by the author of its intended meaning. This is why it is mentioned in the Qur’an:

وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ

“The true interpretation of the (allegorical Verses) is either known to God, or those who are infused with Knowledge” (3:7).

These are the people who are direct recipient of knowledge from God or have been appointed to teach that knowledge. Obviously, such people could only be the Prophet himself and his progeny, who have been trained by him.

God has declared about the Prophet (S):

وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ هُوَ الْحَقُّ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ بِعِبَادِهِ لَخَبِيرٌ بَصِيرٌ

“And that which We have revealed to you of the Book, that is the truth verifying that which is before it; most surely with respect to His servants Allah is Aware, Seeing” (35:31).

After referring to the Prophet God states about his progeny:

ثُمَّ أَوْرَثْنَا الْكِتَابَ الَّذِينَ اصْطَفَيْنَا مِنْ عِبَادِنَا فَمِنْهُمْ ظَالِمٌ لِّنَفْسِهِ وَمِنْهُم مُّقْتَصِدٌ وَمِنْهُمْ سَابِقٌ بِالْخَيْرَاتِ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ ذَٰلِكَ هُوَ الْفَضْلُ الْكَبِيرُ

“Then We gave the Book for an inheritance to those whom We chose from among Our servants; but of them is he who makes his soul to suffer a loss, and of them is he who takes a middle course, and of them is he who is foremost in deeds of goodness by Allah's permission; this is the great excellence” (35:32).

Major Arabic commentaries of the Qur’an, suggest that these chosen people are the family of the Prophet. On the basis of Hadith al-Thaqalayn it is essential for us to refer to the holy Prophet and his progeny for the interpretation of such Verses.

Since in the present volume the interpretations as provided by Muhammad (S) and Aali Muhammad (‘a) has been used, it must be accepted that it is the intended meaning of God. If, however, someone else interprets these Verses in other ways, then it should be treated at par with Tafsir Bi ‘r-Rai (personal thoughts), which is misguidance, and the proponent should prepare himself for the hell.

An Accepted Logical Methodology

It is an established principle that if the meaning of any text had become clear with a reasoning that is supported by Islamic legal (Shariah) arguments, then any lone account written contradicting such text would not be acceptable. Rather, it could be rejected outright.

However, if there is a Qur’anic Verse or an authentic tradition (Hadith), which is apparently in conflict with it, then its logical explanation must be sought, so that it there is no clash with the meaning established by logical reasoning and the Qur’anic text.

Muhaqqiq Shaykh Bahai, pointed out to this rule in his book Al-Aitaqad al-Imamia, “Usually we interpret the Qur’anic Verses by their apparent meaning, except those which are against an established logical principle. In such a case, its reinterpretation is sought. An example is the use of the word “yad” (hand), which needs an explanation.”

On the basis of this principle, the meaning which the respected author has used in this volume is to be accepted. It has been established in earlier discussions that God is free of corporal attachments. His person is unsoiled with mundane debris and ailments. However, if the meaning of a Verse appears contrary to this logic, it is pertinent to look for those meanings that neutralise this contradiction, because in the Qur’an there is no conflict. God had pointed out:

وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا ‎

“If this Qur’an was the word of someone else (other than God), then certainly (you would have found) great contradictions in it” (4:82).

The absence of incongruity or inconsistency in the Qur’an is a proof that it is the word of God, especially when its meanings are backed by Arabic vocabulary. There is no reason why meanings of the allegorical Verses, as adopted by the author of this work should not be used, especially when these are further supported by Arabic language and Arabic proverbs.

To give an example, the meaning of the word “Kashfe Saaq” as adopted by the author was accurate using the Arabic proverbs as benchmark. It was customary among the Arabs to show the intensity of an act by the using of the expression “Kashfe Saaq”. So, when they want to describe the peak of a battle they say, “Qamatal harab alus saaq.” The battle reached the Saaq meant it had become very brutal. These meanings were so apparent that even the opponents of Shi’a thought agreed with the accuracy of this interpretation. Therefore, Deputy Nazir Ahmed Dehlavi, in his translation of the Qur’an said that the ordinary (literal) meaning of the Verse:

يَوْمَ يُكْشَفُ عَن سَاقٍ

The Day that the shin shall be laid bare... (68:42).

Is – “the day when the thigh would be exposed”. This is an Arabic proverb that points to a great calamity, and we have translated the Verse according to this view:

يَوْمَ يُكْشَفُ عَن سَاقٍ

“On the day when there shall be a severe affliction…” (68:42).

Similarly, meanings of the word ‘yad’ (literally meaning “hand”), which the Shaykh had done in the Verse -

قَالَ يَا إِبْلِيسُ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَن تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ

“What stopped you from prostrating before him, whom I have created with My Hands [meaning power] …” (38:75).

There were two other possible meanings, one as a gift or a blessing. In this context the meaning of the Verse would be “O Iblees, what made you to stop prostrating to him, whom I have created with My Hands (gifts of both worlds)?”

Shaykh Al-Mufid preferred this meaning to the one, which as mentioned in the text, involved repetition because strength and authority had the same undertones.

Secondly, one meaning of yad is power and the other is grace. Therefore, in this situation the meanings of the Verse would be “whom I have created with My strength and grace.”

Similarly, the word wajh had two meanings, which were mentioned in the text. It is possible that it may represent the essence of God, because the mention of the word “face” was also applicable allegorically to the person itself. So the meaning of the same Verse 28:88 would be,

كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ

“Everything shall perish, except the Person or the Essence of God” (28:88).

Also, wajh corresponds to faith and religion because, just as face is the recognition of a person, similarly deen or religion represents the identity of a group. Some traditions pointed out that Aaimma were the manifestations of wajh. All these meanings were incorporated in many traditions that have descended from Ahl al-Bayt. We complemented this statement with some reports from the Ma’soomeen (Aali Muhammad).

Muhammad Ibn Muslim said that he asked Imam Al-Baqir (‘a) about the Qur’anic Verse:

مَا مَنَعَكَ أَن تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ

Ma man’aka an tasjuda lima khalaqtu biyadayi

“What stopped you from prostrating before him, whom I have created with My Hands (power)…” (38:75).

He replied that yad is used in Arabic language to represent power, grace or favours such as to say that such and such person had “Ayyadi Katheera” plenty of favours on their selves. Muhammad Obadiah says that Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) was asked about the Qur’anic Verse,

بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ

“…Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty…” (5:64).

He replied that ‘yad’ means with His power and grace. Abi Hamza said that he asked Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir about the Qur’anic Verse,

كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ

“…Everything will perish save His countenance” (28:88).

He replied that God’s eminence is way above that He should be praised with reference to His face. The meaning of the Verse here is that everything would perish other then His deen or religion.

Abu Mogheera said that he was sitting with As-Sadiq al-Aali Muhammad, when a man approached him and asked him the meaning of the Verse,

كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ

“…Everything will perish save His countenance…” (28:88).

He replied that they were the external manifestations through which God was recognised.

To summarise, we could say that the meanings of the allegorical Verses of the Qur’an, which have been quoted by the respected author of this book were well supported by several traditions that were reported in Bihar Al-Anwar and Tafsir al-Burhan, where further information could be sought by the more demanding readers.

Those Qur’anic Verses, which used words, such as makr and istehza for God, were mentioned to counter the makr and istehza of infidels. Both Shi’a and Sunni scholars agreed that God’s names are understood on the basis of its intended use or results and not as a source or foundation. For example, God is Rahman and Raheem, where rahmah stands for kindness or compassion in the dictionary. It is a condition related to the heart, which demands sympathy and consideration. If we now used these names as a source then we would have to assume a physical heart for God. If heart was assumed, then a body frame would be necessary, which would not be possible. Therefore, we have to assume that He was Rahman as a consequence of His actions. The same is true for God’s anger and displeasure.

It is the same state of affair with all other allegorical Verses, which had been discussed by the respected author in this volume. God was responding to those who in their capacity tried to deceive and make fun of God, in the same vein. Therefore, allegorically God had used the same terminology for Himself. This in linguistic terms is called mashakla or equivalence. For example, God said:

وَجَزَاءُ سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِّثْلُهَا

“And the recompense of evil is punishment like it…” (42:40).

that is, to say that return of an evil was evil, whereas the punishment for an evil was not considered to be evil.

In Surah Al-Baqara it was said:

فَمَنِ اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ ‎

“…whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful [of your duty] to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard [against evil]” (2:194).

Similar maxims are frequent in the Arabic language. Scholars from Sunni School of thought also agreed with this approach of interpreting the given Verse. Readers could refer to Tafsir al-Baidhavi and Al-Kashaaf in this context.

• 1. Ref: Shibli Al-Kalam.
• 2. See the work of famous Muslim Scientist Haroon Yahya.
• 3. See Usul al-Kafi, Tafseer al-Safi and Burhan.
• 4. It is important to respect all stages of Tawhid, because with a minor neglect, a man could become guilty of committing Shirk al-Khafi (veiled) or Jalli (perceptible).
• 5. Al-Milal wa an-Nahal, by Allama Shahrastani