Q & A: If the proof of Allah’s existence is so simple, then why doesn’t the world convert to Islam?

Question: If it is that simple, and the proof so clear, why does not the whole world convert to Islam?

Answer: Because obvious proofs do not cause acceptance. You know, I struggled with another version of the proof in “Foundations of the Religion” when I had first converted to Islam. I needed them, because I knew I would be facing a wave of mockery from my own people due to my conversion. I wanted proofs that were based on commonly accepted premises to fight back to show that I was right. I even thought that if I could prove my beliefs logically based on common premises, the whole world would quickly become Muslim, and that is why I was euphoric the first time I learned them. Now I know that humans are far from rational, and the fact that the world didn’t become Muslim was a clear proof for me that no one believes unless Allah has willed it:

“وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ وَمَا تَعْمَلُونَ”

Meaning: “Allah created you and what you do.” (As-Saaffaat. 96)

My experience makes it easy to accept that people like Abu Talib or other idolaters like Abu Lahab, knowing the truth by having seen miracles in front of their eyes, still did not accept Islam. It is mentioned in tafsiir books that when this was revealed:

إِنْ هُوَ إِلا ذِكْرٌ لِلْعَالَمِينَ () لِمَنْ شَاءَ مِنْكُمْ أَنْ يَسْتَقِيمَ

Meaning: “Verily this is a warning to the worlds, so the one who wills will take the path of fearing and obeying Allah” (Al-Kawthar, 27-28).

Then the idolaters said, “so it is up to us, if we want, we will.” So Allah revealed:

وَمَا تَشَاءُونَ إِلا أَنْ يَشَاءَ اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ

Meaning: “You do not will anything unless Allah has willed it.”

The first version I learned of this proof used simple math, and I ventured out to present it when challenged about my conversion. The problem was that I had not understood some of the underlying assumptions of that version and a mathematician had a field day with me due to my ignorance. Bruised and beaten, I set out to understand it properly, and to learn how to present it in a way that anybody can understand, and without having complicated ideas in the argument or underlying the argument.

I had my “revenge,” by the Grace of Allah when I faced a hypocrite that used to attend my lessons pretending to be Muslim for marriage purposes. He had a degree in math and physics. One day I announced, “I can prove that Allah exists, and that the Islamic belief in God is correct.” He said mockingly, “O really…, how so?” He was probably expecting an argument based on design, or contingency, and had his arsenal ready. When I explained to him the proof he made an attempt or two to throw me off, but because the argument is simple and clear, it was easy to silence him, by the Grace of Allah. He stood up and said, “I will think about it, I take it as a challenge!” He never came back to my lessons, and avoided me like the plague after that. Subhan Allah, how can someone with a fragment of good in their heart be annoyed by a proof that shows that the Creator exists?

In another quite different instance I was teaching a person who had converted and was taking classes so that he could marry a Muslim girl. Whenever I receive converts I fear they might not be convinced, but just going along to “get the girl,” or some other reason, so if there is time I will present the above proof. One time I had a gentleman with a Master’s Degree in aeronautical engineering from a prestigious university. When I presented the proof he actually started crying, and even explaining it to others. For the most part however, whenever I use it on a non-Muslim I get a nodding, “yes you are right,” and then…. nothing. As if I had told them something very ordinary, that has no implications. That is why I see these proofs mainly as defense systems, not change agents, because most people change only for emotional reasons, not logical reasons. These proofs are important for preventing deviants to affect Muslims by answering their attacks. They are also important to help someone affected by doubts.

Authored by Shaykh Abu Adam

About these ads

26 Responses to Q & A: If the proof of Allah’s existence is so simple, then why doesn’t the world convert to Islam?

  1. Sign of Saturn says:

    Hi there,

    I was just wondering, what exactly was the proof that silenced the person you mentioned above? Also, I was wondering if you could kindly share a little bit about your educational background.


    Sign of Saturn

  2. loveProphet says:

    Walaikum us Salam,

    That is a very true observation.
    Before i used to discuss with a relativist, a number of the strongest arguments for God he avoided and where he answered some of the other arguments, i showed the absurdity of the answers and then he said “oh yeah, i just guessed it”. And since again and again he couldn’t answer me, he got frustrated because i only believe in one truth! Thus our conversations ended
    Its just that most of the people that are atheists already “think” that God doesn’t exist and thus accept no proof, no matter how strong.

  3. Sign of Saturn says:

    Hi there!

    I’m a bit confused. Is loveProphet and Shaykh Abu Adam the same person? If so, why is one person posting comments under two different user names?

    About the comment above, I’m not sure relativism is coherent with atheism. An atheist makes a claim to truth, namely, that there is such thing as “God,” however that term is defined.

    A relativist is somebody who either denies that there is such a thing as truth or who holds that no single claim is better or worse than any other. Relativists deny the possibility of impartial adjudication between rival and competing claims to truth. That’s not compatible with atheism. There are several prominent atheists, such as Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, and Alan Sokal, who are very harshly critical of relativism.

    Incidentally, I think it’s an excessive generalization to say that “that most of the people that are atheists already ‘think’ that God doesn’t exist and thus accept no proof, no matter how strong.” It seems, rather, that the opposite is the case: that atheists and agnostics maintain that belief should be guided by what logic, reason, and evidence warrant. I think it’s probably better not to make unfair generalizations about what other people believe, especially if we don’t want others to make unfair generalizations about people of faith, including Muslims. What do you think?

    Sign of Saturn

  4. Sign of Saturn says:

    Apologies. That should read, “An atheist makes a claim to truth, namely, that there is *no* such thing as “God”….

  5. loveProphet says:

    I know that a relativist is not an atheist always. Nor did i claim such a thing.
    As for that generalisation, it is just a simple observation that is proven time and time again. So its not baseless.
    This article clearly showed how its not the issue of logic due to which atheists and agnostics don’t believe, but rather other things, including pride, arrogance and just plainly ignoring other arguments because one “thinks” there is no proof etc.
    And no we are not the same people.
    Unfortunately i’ve noticed how you’ve constantly been jumping to unwarranted conclusions, it is not a healthy thing.

  6. Sign of Saturn says:

    I’m sorry, but which unwarranted conclusions have I jumped to?

    Again, to make the generalization that atheists and agnostics reach their conclusions about the non-existence of God on basis of pride and arrogance seems unfair. Appealing to a “simple observation” isn’t at all convincing. It is about as fair as the generalization that people of faith are all blind and irrational and then justifying this generalization on the basis of “a simple observation”.

    I’ve inquired into the justification for the Kalam cosmological argument in a separate post. I am curious to see how Muslims address objections to that argument.

    Sign of Saturn

  7. loveProphet says:

    The generalisation about them “thinking” would be if i had said “all atheists.”

  8. loveProphet says:

    By the way, i have yet to see any atheist who has not believed what he has for reasons other than what i mentioned and the Sheikh has mentioned. Whether it is Kant or Dawkins.

  9. nimble says:

    What is the mathematical proof?

  10. Sign of Saturn says:

    “By the way, i have yet to see any atheist who has not believed what he has for reasons other than what i mentioned and the Sheikh has mentioned. Whether it is Kant or Dawkins.”

    Are you saying that Kant was an atheist? What then do you make of his book, “The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God”?

    When you say that you have not seen any theist who has not believed such and such, what exaclty is it to which you are referring?

    Sign of Saturn

  11. loveProphet says:

    I absolutely hate it when people just don’t read the relevant articles.

    Anyways Sheikh Abu Adam, i thought this would be a nice add, i think Ibn Mazhar probably has the “Kalam Pack” still from Omar, maybe it can be added to the articles section as PDF:

    Reasons for Rejecting Allah’s Existence from Shaykh Abul Qanit al-Hassani, the Guiding Helper Foundation

    So in the end, we would say that those that find fault with the logical arguments (even if
    they be as qualified as Immanuel Kant) have done one of the following:
    a) Failed to understand how the various arguments fit together. For example, Imannuel
    Kant rejected the “primary mover” argument in his Critique of Pure Reason because
    he claimed that the causes and effects we see are within the same system whereas the
    primary mover is outside the system and there is no direct link between the two. [As a
    side note, his claim has been blindly accepted and propagated for over two centuries
    now by both non-Muslim and contemporary Muslim Academics - up until the point
    that any “qualified” Academic today “knows” that using logic to prove the existence
    of a Supreme Being is an outdated and already “disproved” method)]. This shows
    their lack of understanding of how the primary mover argument fits in with the
    argument of Allah’s unity. As the conclusions of the arguments for Allah’s unity
    show that all causes and effects that we see are directly produced by Allah.
    Otherwise, we would be assigning to the apparent causes the power to create the
    effects – while it is known through the arguments for Allah’s unity in His actions that
    both the causes and effects (even those we see today) are directly created by Allah.
    b) Did not become extremely qualified in the science of Logic as conveyed by the
    Muslim Logicians and summarized in ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Akhdari’s Sullam al-
    Munawraqi. – And Therefore were unable to understand and interpret the arguments.
    c) Were presented with non-detailed arguments (with missing premises) and concluded
    that the premises do not follow a logical order.
    d) Were presented with the arguments in a format that is very difficult to understand and
    interpret -and have thus misinterpreted them.
    e) Were presented the arguments by someone who made mistakes in his arguments. In
    other words, they learned a wrong argument and then concluded that proving Allah’s
    existence through logic is impossible.
    f) Have blindly accepted the post-Kant view that logic and faith do not fit together – and
    they simply point to his lengthy arguments as a proof for their belief expecting people
    to accept them.
    g) Hold a view of time that does not correspond to reality nor to empirical observation.
    For example, they believe in circular time (like some religions of the East).
    There are other reasons also, such as arrogance (e.g., “Well, we Westerners (or Westernstyle
    educated Muslims) are far more advanced than those backward camel-drivers that
    wrote lengthy Arabic books.”).

  12. Sign of Saturn says:

    “I absolutely hate it when people just don’t read the relevant articles.”

    I’m sorry, but to whom is this comment directed?

    Just to repeat my question above, by lumping Kant and Dawkins together, are you saying that Kant was an atheist?

    Sign of Saturn

  13. Ibn Mazhar says:

    Sign of Saturn,

    It’s irrelevant whether or not Kant was an atheist. Firstly, he was a non-Muslim. Secondly, as mentioned by loveProphet above, Kant had not accepted the “primary mover” argument. Accepting or rejecting Kant’s theism has very little bearing on the matter.

  14. I hope this is not going to be about Kant. Kant is not important, he is just another blasphemer. If you guys want to discuss what Kant was or wasn’t please take it elsewhere, or I will moderate. For the record, the difference between an atheist and an agnostic is insignificant to Muslims, as both do not believe there is a creator. That is why you’ll find many Muslims say “atheist”, meaning anyone that does not believe in a creator, including agnostics.

  15. loveProphet says:

    Again with jumping to unwarranted conclusions!
    I know though the difference between an atheist and agnostic, but i still deem them misguided and irrational people. Their common ground being that they did not accept Allah. I didn’t intend to imply that they are the same.

  16. Sign of Saturn says:

    You people are amazing.

    First, one of you says, “i have yet to see any atheist who has not believed what he has for reasons other than what i mentioned and the Sheikh has mentioned. Whether it is Kant or Dawkins.”

    Then, when it’s pointed out that Kant wrote a book offering a proof for the existence of God, another one of you says, “It’s irrelevant whether or not Kant was an atheist.” How convenient.

    And, then another one of you says, “I hope this is not going to be about Kant,” only to then declare that he’s “just another blasphemer.”

    Finally, the one who lumped Kant together with Dawkins has the audacity to accuse someone else of “jumping to unwarranted conclusions.”

    May I ask in all sincerity: are you people considered exemplary models of Muslim ethics? This really is fascinating. Is it part of the Islamic faith to misrepresent the beliefs of other people and slander them in order to promote your own faith?

  17. Hi Sign of Saturn,

    I was the one that said it is irrelevant and that I hope this isn’t going to be about Kant. The reason being that I feel it is unimportant. He is just another blasphemer. By blasphemer I mean a non-Muslim. This is not a website for this purpose. I don’t care whether Kant actually said something or not, that is a matter for historians, and not a topic I want here. I did not say you jumped to unwarranted conclusions, so I will no comment on that. I don’t think I have misrepresented anyone’s faith myself, but I explained to you that to a Muslim the difference between and atheist and an agnostic is unimportant, and it is too trivial an issue to spend time on. Did someone call an agnostic an atheist or not? Maybe, maybe not, and of course that is technically incorrect, but lets move on.

  18. Sign of Saturn says:

    That doesn’t answer my question. Is it permissible or impermissible in Islam to misrepresent the beliefs of other people, regardless of whether those beliefs accord with your own? Is it permissible, for example, to say that Kant was an atheist if he was not an atheist, thereby misinforming ignorant readers? If it is permissible, then that’s a really sorry revelation about the nature of Islamic ethics. I had no idea that misrepresentation was permissible in Islam.

    On the other hand, if it is impermissible to misrepresent the beliefs of other people, then are you as a Muslim obligated to condemn that act of misrepresentation, especially when it’s committed by a fellow Muslim?

  19. Hi Saturn, no it is not permissible to lie. If I know someone is lying, then I would be obliged to stop it if able.

  20. loveProphet says:

    I understand how my post on Kant was misinterpreted(wrong phrasing by me i must admit) but to accuse others of lying is just another thing.
    So its come down to ad hominem attacks and denying every premise of the opponent(even if its as certain as the existence of the sun) that the atheist and agnostics are so fond, What a pity.

  21. loveProphet says:

    Note i mean premises of Muslims being denied by atheists and agnostics.

  22. Yaser says:

    assalam ‘alaykum,

    This is with all respect, I hope people approach this with proper adab. Sign of Saturn’s initial question was just about what the the proof was and LoveProphet’s comment was unconnected and then for some reason the two began going at it (wallahu a’lam who’s at fault) but I think all Shaykh Abu Adam hafidhahullah meant to say is that if you two have disagreements on Kant (which is really irrelevant to the purpose of the post) please take them elsewhere. LoveProphet, do not take this personal (as I don’t know how one can in this virtual realm online) but since I cannot contact you in private – please do not be on edge – assume the best from everyone initially and try to deal with everyone with care and etiquette as our beloved Prophet, upon him blessings and peace did.

    On the other hand Shaykh Abu Adam has to respond to the initial request (on the mathematical proof which I’m sure is beneficial for those wondering about it) and we can return back to our regularly scheduled programming.

    As for Shaykh Abu Adam’s post – it hit it on the nail. The Qur`an is a testament to that as it says in Surah Mulk – law kunna nasma’u aw na’qilu – if ony we heard and used our intellect we would have not been the companions of the fire. The primary reason (my belief/or feeling but Allah knows best) for rejecting Islam when presented in a solid, sufficient and complete way (for example Abu Jahl would in the presence of the beloved Prophet, upon him blessings and peace) is nothing but emotional – pride in one’s position, fear of losing power, pride in refusing to admit one is wrong, etc whatever it maybe but it is primarily the heart which is doing the refusal to submit. The brain or mind afterall is just processer not the decision maker. We make decisions against what we know to be good and right all the time – this is really no different in the larger scale. Wallahu a’lam wa hasbiyahu wa ni’mal wakeel. Sorry if I offended anyone.

    Sidi, if you feel that this message is not helpful or wrong please free to remove it.

    faqir ila Ar-Rahman

  23. Ibn Mazhar says:

    as salam `alaykum

    Sidi Yaser,

    The kalam argument for Allah’s existence has been presented in its most essential form in the post, “The Foundations of the Religion.” One should read this entire post prior to commenting, critiquing or trying to refute some perceived “proof.” The proof, though standing on its own when it comes to proving the existence of Allah, must be read in conjunction with what is presented in the article, if one seeks proof for the absolute correctness of Islam as a whole.

  24. loveProphet says:

    Walaikum us Salam Yaser,

    Nothing personal bro.

  25. loveProphet says:

    Assalam-o-Alaikum Yaser,

    Your point about the futility of the discussion of Kant’s beliefs is true here and to discuss it instead of the arguments for God just shows how one is unable to counter the arguments and thus must engage in ad hominem attacks and petty issues.

  26. Yaser says:

    Barakallahu feekum sadaat. If Shaykh Abu Adam doesn’t types in here directly send him my salams and ask him to make du’aa for me. Otherwise, he will see this directly anyway. :)

    wa akhiru da’wanaa ani l-hamdulillahi rabbil ‘alamin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 110 other followers

%d bloggers like this: