What beginning to exist implies in terms of “cause”

August 2, 2013

If it was proposed that a particle came into existence, then the claims that may be made about this event are that it was:

  1. Necessary
  1. Possible
  1. Impossible

There is no 4th alternative. Moreover, the 3rd can obviously be dismissed. Thus two cases remain to be considered as follows:

If it was supposedly necessary, then this necessity could either be claimed to be:

  1. Intrinsic to the particle or
  1. Extrinsic to the particle

There is no 3rd alternative. The first is clearly self-contradictory, because the event did not exist, and what does not exist cannot be intrinsically necessary in existence. It follows that the supposed particles’ supposed necessity of existence must be from other than it.

If it was supposedly possible, then it follows that the possibility of its existence must have outweighed its prior non-existence. Otherwise it would have remained non existent. This outweighing could either be claimed to be:

  1. Intrinsic to the particle or
  2. Extrinsic to the particle

There is no 3rd alternative. The first is clearly self-contradictory, because the event/particle did not exist, and what does not exist cannot have any influence on anything. It follows again that the supposed particles’ existence would have to be from other than it.

With this understanding of “cause”, it is clear that to propose that something can begin to exist without a “cause” is absurd.

Hence, the atheist contention that we do not know if something can begin to exist without a cause is absurd.


Refuting Yaser Qadi’s opposition to proving Allaah’s existence

August 2, 2009

Islam is a great religion, it does not need to attack reason or logic to hold. It has nothing to hide. It is not based on blind imitation, or blind acceptance. The argument for its correctness agrees with reason from beginning to end, as has been shown in the article “Foundations of the Religion“. There is no argument based on valid premises and sound structure that can put a dent in it. This is what we Sunnis believe, and any religion that does not meet this criteria is not the religion of Aļļaah.

Yaser Qadi is out to show otherwise in his The Theological Implications of the Story of Ibrahim & the Stars (Ibn Taymiyyah vs. the Mutakallimun). He now opposes the proof of the Creator’s existence, not by showing that the premises do not hold or that the argument is false, but by saying in essence: “it is not mentioned in the Qur’aan, is complicated, was not used by the companions and there is no need, because everybody knows by the fiţrah.” Thus he implies that it is prohibited. Of course, it is all based on the talk of arch-anthropomorphist, Ibn Taymiyyah.

To continue reading you may download the article Rational Quranic Islam vs Wahabism in PDF formats. The table of contents is:

Introduction…. p. 3
Circular reasoning is Quranic?!…. p. 3
Different times and different people need different types of proofs…. p. 4
The Imam ˆAbdulQaahir on the Sunni scholars of the science of belief…. p. 5
Kalam scholars used terminology like those of the Aristotelians to show them wrong…. p. 10
The principles of the proofs for the creators existence…. p. 10
About the so called proof of the existence of God through the proof of the createdness of “accidents”…. p. 11
The proof of the creators existence is in compliance with the Qur’aan…. p. 12
Implications of the proof of Allaah’s existence for denying Allaah’s resemblance to creation…. p. 12
A more detailed way of showing that bodies must be created for one to prove that the world is created…. p. 14
Ibn Taymiyyah’ arguments against the proof stating that bodies must have a creator…. p. 15
The anthropomorphist dilemma; the motivation of Ibn Taymiyyah for attacking the proof of Allaah’s existence based on the fact that the world consists of bodies and attributes…. p. 19
Conclusion….   p. 19

Q & A: Is the jawhar perpetual?

May 19, 2008

Question: I have a question regarding atomism that the Salafis are charging on us Sunnis. Do the Ashari really believe that the atom is perpetual in the sense that it itself is not an accident? So, this is one special object that exists, all else is accident? And this one special object is the common composition of everything? I know about there not being an infinitely indivisible particle, but my question is regarding its perpetuality. Should not this small special object “the atom” be an accident itself, as God would have to recreate it at every instant. So then everything in the universe is an accident according to the Asharis but based on the existence of this indivisible particle?

Yasir Qadi says: “For the Asharites, the only perpetual object is the atom. The atom itself is created at a specific point in time, but after that time, it remains in creation until God wills otherwise.”

Answer: First of all never say “God would have to recreate it,” because God does not have to do anything. This is one of the most important principles of belief.

Second, using the word “atom” is a bit misleading. Asharis do not hold that the atom is the jawhar, the indivisible element of physical things. Take a look at the following article to know more about this: The Indivisible Element

As for your question: They are all things that have a beginning. “Accidents” or `arad, better translated as “incidental characteristics,” in my opinion, are simply attributes of the indivisible element (jawhar) that bodies are made of. None of them can exist without the other, but the indivisible elements are more lasting, because if there is a change in a body, then the `arad has changed, but the jawhars presumably remain the same. That is why they are longer lasting, but not perpetual in an absolute sense, only relative to the `arad. On the other hand, a jawhar cannot be without being either moving or still, so you cannot have a jawhar without `arad, because movement and stillness are `arad.

Yasir appears to be a mushabbih, that is why he says things like “The atom itself is created at a specific point in time, but after that time, it remains in creation until God wills otherwise.” He imagines this is the Ashari position, because he seems to think that Allah, after a creating something, might just take a break from it and leave it until He wills for it to be no more. This is equivalent to the Judeo-Christian belief that the creator took a rest on the 7th day. He has the same position on causation. He says that once a thing has been given a power to cause things, to actually influence events, it can be left alone to do its own thing under supervision, in his opinion. Here are his exact words: “Rather, Allah has created each and every substance with intrinsic properties, and these properties may in fact effect other substances if Allah allows them to.” This belief is one of the origins of shirk, because it explicitly states that Allah’s power is shareable.

This belief in complete or partial rest comes from the methodology of thinking of Allah in terms of created things. The mushabbihah believe that Allah’s actions are sequential events: doing one thing and then another and another and so on. Actually though, Allah’s actions are not events, they do not start or stop, they are not sequential, they are not in time. They are without a how.

Asharis, on the contrary to what was proposed by Yasir, believe that neither a change nor a lasting existence happens even for a moment without Allah having specified and created that. Nothing is ever acting without Allah having specified and created that act to the last detail. This is because every moment of existence for a created thing is only a possibility, so if Allah has not willed for its existence in the next moment, it will not exist.

Authored by Shaykh Abu Adam al Naruiji

Wahhabi Contention: Comparing Allah to Accidents

May 3, 2008

Wahhabi Contention: The problem is that one takes a non-Quranic evidence as a certain fact, and then uses it to deny or distort what is clearly Quranic (in this case, the Attributes of God). Herein actually lies the main contention that we have with the Asharis. If there is nothing like Him, we should not compare Him to ‘accidents’ or ‘bodies’ but rather simply accept what He says about Himself.

Sunni Response: Actually, if there is nothing like Him, then you must deny that whatever is mentioned in the Qur’aan about the attributes of Allah means Him having a like. Asharis do not deny Allah’s attributes, and they do not compare Allah to accidents and bodies, they deny that He is like them. They deny that His attributes should be quantitative or limited. That is something very different. This does not involve comparison, but knowing the characteristics of creation that makes them need a creator. This is something obvious to even common people, because it simply means that Allah is not limited, not by time and not by place. Rather, He created time and space, and He existed without them before they existed, and He is now as He was before they existed.

Author: Shaykh Abu Adam al Naruiji

Wahhabi Contention: ‘Proof from Accidents’ is not Quranic

May 3, 2008

Wahhabi Contention: The Quran itself does not advocate any ‘Proof from Accidents’) And the greatest proof for this is that the earliest generations of Islam (and even the Prophet (saw) himself) did not derive such complex theological premises from the Quran. Now, the claim that a certain proof or theory does not contradict the Quran is not the same as saying it is Quranic.

Sunni Response: If the proof is valid, complies with the Qur’aan, and proves something stated in it, then why is it not Quranic? Different times and different people are affected by different types of proofs. The encouragement to think of proofs of Allah’s existence and attributes are very many in the Quran, and they are not restricted to what is verbatim mentioned in the scriptures. An example of such encouragement is in this ayah:

أَفَلاَ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى ٱلإِبْلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ

Meaning: “What, do they not consider how the camel was created?”

In light of the ayah, if you want me to restrict how I consider the camel, then you need to show me an explicit text prohibiting me from considering the “how” of the camel. It does not matter if the consideration is simple or not, lucid or not. This is because the encouragement to consider is absolute in the ayah, and cannot be restricted without a scriptural text as proof.

What you call “accidents,” which would be better translated as incidents, refers simply to the different events and attributes bodies have, that is, anything with a size. The Quran states that Allah created everything. Does this not include what happens to bodies? This claim of yours is truly puzzling. An example of an ayah from the Quran that encourages thinking about bodies (things with size) and accidents (attributes and actions of things with size) is:

إِنَّ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ لَآَيَاتٍ لِأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ

Meaning: “Verily in the creation of the Skies and the Earth, and the differences of night and day there are signs for those who have perceptive minds.” (Aal Imraan, 190)

The Skies and the Earth are both bodies, because they both have size, and the changes of night and day are “accidents”. Clearly then, seeking proofs of Allah’s existence and attributes in bodies and events is something Quranic of the highest order.

Anyway, using the proofs mentioned in the Quran will lead to the same conclusions as proofs based on the indivisible element, namely that Allah is not like creation. This is because all creation as we know it is either something with size (a body), or an attribute of it (”accident”). If you prove that Allah exists based on them, then you are implicitly saying that Allah is not like that, because you are already arguing that these bodies and their attributes need a creator.

For example, based on the aayah, if you say that night and day are timed orderly, and that this shows that someone orders them, then you must also hold that Allah is not something “timed”. Otherwise you would end up saying that Allah needs a creator according to your original argument.

Moreover, if you say that the skies and the earth are highly ordered structures, and that someone must have ordered them, then you must also hold that Allah is not a structure. Otherwise you would end up saying that Allah needs a creator according to your original argument.

Author: Shaykh Abu Adam al Naruiji

Wahhabi Contention: ‘Proof from Accidents’ and ‘Atomism’ are not Quranic

May 3, 2008

Wahhabi Contention: Neither the ‘Proof from Accidents’ nor the Ashari belief in atomism are ‘Quranic’ proofs.

Sunni Response: First of all, if an argument is valid, then it is a proof, and it does not matter if you feel it is “Quranic” or not, whatever that means. A valid argument is a valid argument and a proof. If you start rejecting some valid arguments for no reason, then you have destroyed the bases for human knowledge beyond what the senses provide. You have sunk to the level of dumb animals. You have taken the view of the Baraahimah, the philosophers of ancient India and Persia. They rejected the idea that knowledge can be achieved beyond what is strictly sensory. This is the heritage of your cow-worshiping neighbors back home.

The belief that there is an indivisible element is clearly stated in the Quran, because it unequivocally implies that created things are not infinitely divisible. Rather, they are finite in size:

وما من غائبة في السماء والأرض إلا في كتاب مبين

Meaning: “there is nothing hidden to creation in the skies or earth that is not in a clear book.” (Suuratu-l-Naml, 75)

As you know, the book is not infinite in size, therefore, the created things in the sky and earth are limited in number, and not infinite.

Another aayah:

لا يعزب عنه مثقال ذرة في السماوات ولا في الأرض ولا أصغر من ذلك ولا أكبر إلا في كتاب مبين

Meaning: “Nothing is hidden from Him, not what has the size of the smallest ant in the Skies or Earth, and nothing smaller or larger than that, and it is all recorded in a clear book.” (Suuratu Saba’, 3)

This aayah tells you very clearly that everything smaller than the smallest ant is recorded, this means that it is not infinitely divisible, because the book is not infinite in size. Further to this is another aayah:

وأحْصَى كُلّ شَيْءٍ عَدَدا

Meaning: “Allah knows the number of all things.” [Al-Jinn, 28]

Another aayah:

وكل شيء أحصيناه كتابا

Meaning: everything has been recorded in a book. (An-Naba’, 29)

At-Tabari said: “It means that all things have been counted and recorded in a book, that is, its total number, amount, and value.” Clearly then, they are not infinite, because that would make all the numbers infinity.

Denying that creation has an indivisible element is also against ijma, for Abdul Qahir al Baghdadi stated in his “Usul al Din” regarding it : “This is the saying of most Muslims, except An-Nattaam (a Mutazili leader.)” And the disagreement of someone like An-Nattaam is certainly not considered for ijma.

Author: Shaykh Abu Adam al Naruiji