Shaykh
Taqiuddin an-Nabhani’s (may Allah have mercy on him) argument for the existence
of a creator is best summarised in the brief paragraph below from his concise,
yet profound, book, Nidham ul-Islam:
“The reason that things
must have a creator, is because the things which are comprehensible by the mind
that is man, life, and the universe, are limited, weak, imperfect, and are in
need for something other than themselves. Man is limited, because he grows in
every aspect to a certain limit that he cannot surpass, so he is limited. Life
is limited, because it manifests itself only in individuals, and what is
noticed by the senses is that it is concluded with the individual, thus it is
limited. The universe is limited, because it is the sum of celestial bodies,
and each body is limited; and the sum of limited things is self-evidently
limited. Thus, man, life, and the universe are definitely limited. When we
ponder on the limited (thing), we see that it is not azali (eternal –
limitless), otherwise it would not have been limited, and therefore, it must be
created by something else, which is the Creator of man, life and the universe.
This Creator, is either created by someone else, creator of himself, or azali
(eternal – limitless) whose existence is indispensable (wajib ul-wujood ). It
is absolutely false that he is created by someone else, because he would then
be limited. As for being self-created, the ramification of which would be he is
created by himself and creating himself simultaneously. This is simply absurd.
Hence, the creator must be azali (eternal – limitless) whose existence is
indispensable. He is Allah.”
He makes a more elaborate case in his
book Islamic Personality volume 1 (IP1)
and instead of merely repeating the same points in their entirety in this post,
I would merely like to highlight some important features of his line of
reasoning, which give his argument a slightly different, yet a very effective
and insightful, angle to most other common arguments we hear of God’s
existence.
The important thing is to note
how Shaykh Taqiuddin builds a coherent and powerful case in a somewhat unique
manner.
Firstly, it does seem from the
paragraph quoted above that he uses ontological categories similar to those
traditionally used by mainstream sunni schools
of ‘aqeedah, such as, contingent,
necessary and absurd/impossible.
For example, he describes man, life
and the universe as limited, the Creator who is eternal as necessary, and the
possibility of a created-Creator as impossible/absurd. However, to establish
the contingency of man, life and universe he points to their limitations and
dependency, rather than the fact that, rationally, their existence and
non-existence are both possible (which is the approach that I’ve come across in
my study of some Ash’ari texts). This is not a major difference but as we will
come to see a powerful articulation of the true nature of finitude and
dependency is central to the Shaykh’s argument.
Given that the limits and dependence
of man, life and universe are sensorially perceivable, the question arises,
what do they depend on? Herein, lies the possibility of a significant
misunderstanding which must be avoided.
One argument often made is that the
universe is a chain of dependencies e.g. A depends on B, B depends on C, and so
on and so forth, which can be a problematic affirmation to make. By
arguing a chain of dependencies, we then need to refute the possibility of an
actual infinite to prove the existence of a Creator. However, this approach has
two major problems. Firstly, the dependence of A on B, and B on C, while each
of them is limited and finite, is merely a perceived dependence and not real.
Secondly, it reduces the Creator to merely being a first cause who initiates
the universe and then lets it run its own course based on a relationship of
cause and effect.
One does not find Shaykh Taqi
claim such a chain of dependency either inNidham or IP1. Rather, he claims that each
of these dependent things, even though seemingly complementing each other,
actually depends on other than any one of their own kind. Consider the below
lines, for example, from IP1:
“Nor should it be said
that a thing as it is, is matter and is dependent on matter, thus being
dependent on itself and not on something other than itself, and thus (in
reality) is independent. This should not be said because even if we concede
that a thing is matter and depends on matter, this dependence by matter is
dependence on something other than matter not dependence on matter itself. This
is so because an entity of matter alone cannot complement the dependence of
another entity of matter; rather something other than matter is needed for this
dependence to be complemented, and thus matter is dependent on something else
and not on itself. For example, water in order to transform into vapour needs
heat. Even if we conceded that heat is matter and water is matter, the mere
availability of heat is not adequate for water to transform; a specific amount
of heat is needed for transformation to take place. So water is dependent on
this specific amount of heat. The magnitude of this amount is imposed by other
than the water and other than the heat, that is, by other than matter, and
matter is compelled to behave according to it. Thus matter is dependent on that
which determines the magnitude for it and so it is dependent on other than
matter. Hence the dependence of matter on non-matter is a definite fact; thus
matter is needy, being created by a Creator. Therefore all sensorially
perceivable comprehensible things are created by a Creator.”
The above example is critical. The
order, form, proportion, magnitude, timespan, and other factors that delimit
everything within the universe and the universe as a whole are not inherent to
them but are imposed upon
them by other than them. Hence, they stand in need of other than themselves.
This negates any interdependence, in any real sense, of a limited thing to
another.
The fact of their dependence
decisively prove their non-eternality, their finitude, their temporality, and
hence their origination, their creation.
Interestingly, no sooner does Shaykh
Taqi establish this premise, than he concludes that these dependent things must
be created by a Creator. But what about the typical and oft-repeated question –
“Who created the creator?”
The standard approach for most
theists here is to prove the absurdity of an infinite regress, which might well
be a good approach.
However, on this point, the Shaykh
does not delve into the most commonly heard arguments against the possibility
of an actual infinite. Instead he addresses the issue from a different angle by
making a beautiful point about creation, and he merely replies:
“It is absolutely false that he is created by someone else, because he
would then be limited.”
This seems more like a claim rather
than a well-reasoned argument. But as one may increasingly realise,
scholars of immense intellectual depth often pack profound messages in terse
expressions.
Let’s look back at his statement, “It
is absolutely false that he is created by someone else, because he would then
be limited.”
So, the claim is essentially this – a
limited thing cannot possibly create! But why not?
Firstly, as we have seen above,
limited things, although dependent, cannot be dependent on each other because
none of them, by themselves, can completely fulfil anyone’s need (including
their own) in order to sustain themselves in existence, let alone bring
something – anything – into existence. Hence, there is in fact no “chain
of dependencies” to begin with and therefore no need to disprove the
possibility of an infinite “chain of dependencies”. All limited things, by
virtue of the reality that neediness and dependence entail, can only possibly
depend, directly and solely, on the one who is completely independent of any
need – the Creator.
Moreover, a limited thing cannot
create merely because of what the meaning of creation entails. Creation
means to bring into existence from nothing. By “nothing” we mean no prior
substance or pre-established “laws of nature” and the like.
What we witness within the universe
is merely changing of forms (e.g. in the example above, water turning into
vapour). Certain pre-existing substances coming together in certain conditions
to transform into a different form is merely transformation of things from one
state to another. Even when we invent things, we do so using pre-existing
matter, and relying on phenomena that we have become accustomed to through
repetitive observation. Nothing within this universe can bring something
totally different into existence out of nothing.
It is not possible that whatever we
see being produced, invented, or formed within this universe does not even
remotely have any prior similitude or example. At the very least the one common
denominator that every existent being in this universe shares is the fact of
them being delimited within time and space. Therefore, nothing in this universe
is actually able to create in
its true sense.
In contrast, the finitude of the
universe means that it came into existence after not
having existed before in any way, shape or form. Matter, time and space
came into existence after not having existed at all in any way, shape or form.
Therefore, their origination takes place from “nothing” in the sense described
above. And this, in fact, is creation.
Shaykh Taqi explains in IP1 why a thing that
cannot create in its true sense must be limited and temporal, while someone who
creates must be eternal and not dependent upon anything else to create:
“…the things that exist in
this world do not have the capability of creating or originating (anything)
from nothing, whether individually or collectively; the ‘thing’ is incapable of
creating or originating from nothing. If another thing complements it in one or
more aspects, it will still be, together with the other thing or things,
incapable of creating or originating. Its inability to create or originate from
nothing is clearly perceivable. This means that it is not eternal, because an
eternal (thing) must not be characterised with incapability; it must be
characterised with ability to create and originate from nothing, that is, the
effected things must depend on it in order for it to be deemed eternal.
Consequently, the world is not eternal nor is it timeless because it is
incapable of creating or originating. The inability of something to create from
nothing is definite evidence that it is not eternal.
“…If the Creator
did not create the sensorially perceivable, comprehensible (things) from
nothing, he would not be the Creator, because he would be incapable of creating
things on the basis of his will alone; he would rather be subject to requiring
some thing with him with which he can form (things). He would thus be incapable
and not eternal, because he is incapable of creating (things) by himself,
rather is needy of external support: and the one who is incapable and who needs
(something) is not eternal. In addition, as a matter-of-fact, the meaning of
the ‘Creator’ is the one who creates (something) from nothing. The meaning of
being a Creator is that things rely on him for their existence, and that He
does not rely on anything. If he did not create things from nothing, or was
incapable of creating when (other) things did not exist, he would be dependent
on things in creating (things), then the things would not be solely dependent
on him. This means that he is not the sole Creator and thus not a Creator (at
all). So, a Creator must create things from nothing in order for him to be a
Creator and has to be characterised with capability and will, independent of
any thing; He should not depend on anything, and things should depend on him
for their existence. Hence, for fiormation to be creation it must be formation
from nothing, and for the one who forms to be a Creator, he must form from
nothing.”
From the above paragraphs we understand
the meaning
of absolute neediness of
creation and the complete independence of the Creator. This meaning is
beautifully captured in one of the most beautiful names of Allah – Al-Qayyum
(the Self-Subsisting One). Imam Ghazali explains it as below:
From the above paragraphs we
understand the meaning
of absolute neediness of
creation and the complete independence of the Creator. This meaning is
beautifully captured in one of the most beautiful names of Allah – Al-Qayyum
(the Self-Subsisting One). Imam Ghazali explains it as below:
“If there is in
existence an existent whose essence is self-sufficient, whose subsistence does
not come from one other than it, and the perpetuity of whose existence is not
conditioned by the existence of one other than it, (certainly) this existent is
absolutely self-subsistent. Furthermore, if every other existent would subsist
by means of it in such a way that the existence and the perpetuity of the
existence of things are inconceivable except by it, then it is Al-Qayyum because
it subsists by its own essence, and the subsistence of everything is by means
of it. That one is no other than Allah Most High.” [Maqsad al asna]
To conclude, the limits imposed upon the universe prove
its dependence on other than itself. This dependency necessarily implies its non-eternality, hence its
origination from nothing i.e. its creation. A dependent thing cannot possibly
fulfil the need of another dependent thing. Therefore, the Creator must
necessarily be independent of all needs and the One on whom all things depend.
Shafiul Huq
is a student of Classical Arabic and interdisciplinary studies covering the
humanities and social sciences.
No comments:
Post a Comment