Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

LESSON THIRTEEN: RESOLVING SEVERAL SPURIOUS DOUBTS

Believing in an intangible existence

One of the simplest doubts in the field of theology (knowing God) is how can one believe in the existence of an existent, which is not perceivable?

This doubt is held by the simpleton who finds it hard to grasp the concept of there being an intangible reality. However one will also find reflective thinkers who base their thinking upon the principle of sense perception, and also deny the possibility of an intangible existence, hence they are also influenced by this doubt.

The answer to this spurious argument is that the perceptions of the senses are due to an outcome of coherence between bodily parts and bodies or substances etc, which is attained by virtue of corporeality. Each one of our senses perceives a particular material form, which is proportional for that sense with defined conditions. In the same way, one cannot expect the eyes to have the sense of sound, or the ears to have the sense of sight and ability to see colours, hence one must not expect our senses to perceive each and every existent.

On the basis of the following reasons we will establish that we cannot perceive all existents through our outward senses:

Firstly, among the material existents, there are things, which are not competent of being perceived through our senses such as: electrical waves or ultra-violet rays.

Secondly, we perceive many realities through other than the means of our outward senses and we confidently believe in their existence. For example, the states of love and fear, or of conscious intentions are psychological stations just as the spirit is not perceivable by the (bodily) senses. Essentially perception itself is immaterial and imperceptible (through the senses).

Therefore just because a thing cannot be perceived through bodily senses, does not invalidate its existence and should not be the reason for such a thing being improbable and remote to the mind.

a. The role of fear and ignorance in belief in God

Another spurious doubt asserted by the sociologist is that belief in God is an outcome of fear, especially of the dangers of natural disasters such as earthquakes, lightening etc. They believe that man in order to calm his mind has imagined an imaginary existence and named it God and started to worship it. Due to this reason, belief in God becomes subsequently weaker as the causes of, and safety precautions against such disasters are known.

Many Marxist’s in their books grandiloquently regard this as an accomplishment of the science of sociology and use this as a means for deceiving many immature people.

In order to answer their allegations we would say:

Firstly, the bases of this argument are suppositions made by some sociologists and they do not have any logical ground for validity.

Secondly, in the present century itself there were and indeed are many great thinkers aware of the causes behind these phenomena, and who at the same time have a firm belief in God. Belief in God is thus not an outcome of fear or ignorance.

Thirdly, if the fear of some natural phenomenon, or being ignorant of the causes becomes the motive to focus upon God, then it does not mean that God is an outcome of the fear or ignorance of man. Many psychological instincts such as pleasure seeking or lustfulness become the impetus for philosophical, scientific, and technical investigations but do not negatively affect their authenticity.

Fourthly, if people recognise God as the originator of that phenomenon, whose causes are unknown and if with the discovery of their natural causes their faith becomes weak, then surely it is their view and faith, which is weak. This does not provide us with a valid reason to disbelieve in God, because the reality is that the Divine causation with regards to the occurrences in the universe is from the source of the efficacy of natural causes. These causes are not parallel to the Divine causation but rather the Divine causation is transcendental to every material or immaterial cause.

Furthermore the recognition and unrecognition of natural causes will have no efficacy in establishing or not establishing the existence of God.

b. Is the principle of causation, one universal concept?

Yet another spurious argument put forward by some of the Western thinkers is that if the causal nexus (asl al -‘illiyyah) is universal, then God must also have a cause. To accept a God without cause is thus a defect in the principle of causation. If we do not accept this rule to be universal then we would not be able to prove necessary existence through this principle, because it is possible that someone could state that the origin of matter or energy was by itself, and through its mutation things originated.

This argument, as indicated earlier in lesson seven is due to the improper interpretation of the principle of causation. It has been recognised as ‘every existence needs a cause’ but the reality of the matter is that ‘every possible existence or every existent that is dependent or needy requires a cause,’ and this rule is universal, essential, and unexceptional.

However, accepting the origin of matter or energy without a cause, and its mutation as the basis for the origination of the world has several controversies, and will be discussed in future lessons.

c. Achievements of sociology

Some believe that the belief in the Creator of man and universe does not correspond to the accomplishments of modern sociology. For example, it has been proven in chemistry that a certain amount of matter and energy is always subsisting. On this basis, it is not possible for any manifestation to come into existence from nothing and no existent can be completely destroyed. Those who believe in God believe that God has brought creation from non-existence into existence.

They claim that this same argument has been proven in biology. A living creature has evolved from non-living matter and gradually mutated and

reached perfection when it attained the position of man. Those who believe in God believe that God created human beings separately.

We will now aim to answer these controversies:

Firstly, the principle of the continual subsistence of energy and matter is a scientific rule and can only be regarded and applied to those concrete perceptible things. On this basis, philosophical issues such as whether matter and energy are eternal and pre- eternal are not resolved.

Secondly, the subsistence of energy and matter does not imply that one is needless of the Creator, but with the ageing of the universe the more need it has for a creator, because every effect requires a cause. Possibility and dependency are the essence of a possible existent (an effect), rather than it being accidental or temporal.

In other words, matter and energy form as a material cause (‘illah māddiyyah) for the appearance of the universe, and as opposed to being an active cause, is itself in need of an active cause.

Thirdly, the subsistence of certain matter and energy does not obligate the coming into being of a new creation, its growth and reduction. Entities like spirit, life, sense and will etc, are not from matter and energy until their growth and reduction would contradict with the rule.

Fourthly, the presumption of evolution - despite it being scientifically unauthentic and disproved by several great thinkers - does not contradict the belief in God. At its highest level it proves the supportive causation between the living existents. It does not neglect the relationship between them and the necessary existent. It is probably because of this reason that several supporters of this thought believe in God.

Questions:

1. Explain the controversies for denying intangible reality and sense perception.

2. How can one criticise the opinion of sociologists who assert, that belief in God is out of fear and ignorance?

3. Does belief in God contradict the principle of causation? Why?

4. Is the rule of the subsistence of matter and energy incompatible with belief in a creator? Why?

5. Does the presumption of evolution nullify belief in God? Why?

LESSON FOURTEEN: THE MATERIALISTIC WORLD VIEW AND ITS CRITICISM

The principles of the materialist worldview

In order to define the materialist worldview the following principles can be applied:

1. Existence is equivalent to matter and materiality. An existent is either matter, having three dimensions (length, width, and thickness) or volume, or it is counted as having the properties of matter. Naturally matter has the capability of being quantitative and divisible. Hence on this very principle the existence of God as being immaterial and supernatural is denied.

2. Matter has no beginning or end, resulting in it being uncreated and without any need for cause. According to our philosophical terminology it is the necessary existence.

3. The universe cannot be considered as having a final cause and purpose, because the active agent (fā’il) does not seem to have any intelligence and will for being identified as having a purpose.

4. Phenomena in the universe (not matter itself) come into existence as an effect of the shifting of material particles, which influence each other.

From this standpoint one can recognise the former things as a type of condition and as a preparatory cause (‘illah i’dādiyyah) for the subsequent phenomenon or at-most it can be considered as natural activity among materials. For example, a tree can be known as a natural agent for the fruit that it bears, or the phenomena of chemistry and physics can be considered as the agent. However, none of the phenomena require a divine agent that bestows existence.

5. The fifth principle can also be added to the above and is related to theology. However from a certain aspect it precedes the other principles and is the only authentic cognition. It is the principle, which comes forth from sense experience. As the experience of the senses only confirms matter and materials, it will thus not accept any other existence.

Nevertheless we have mentioned in the previous lesson the defects of this principle and it is not required from us to criticise this principle over again, therefore we will analyse the remaining principles of materialist worldview:

a. Investigating the first principle

This principle is the most fundamental principle in the materialist worldview, however its proclamations are nothing but absurd. It has failed to establish any argument for denying metaphysics, particularly on the basis of materialist epistemology, which is founded upon the principles of sense and experience. It is clear that no sense experience, which itself is matter, would be able to articulate in the domain of metaphysics and either deny or establish anything. The utmost thing stated in the logic of empiricism is, that existence beyond the physical realm cannot be established on its basis. It should therefore at least accept the possibility of the existence of this realm. We have indicated earlier that it is possible for man to perceive various immaterial phenomena, which do not have the peculiarities of matter, such as spirit through the immediate knowledge (‘ilm hudūri). Furthermore

several intellectual arguments have been established for proving the existence of the immaterial realm in the books of philosophy. The best attestations for the existence of the immaterial spirit are the true dreams, several practices of the yogis, and also the miracles of the prophets (a) and saints.

In any case the arguments mentioned in lesson seven and eight are sufficient enough for proving the existence and non-corporeality of God the Supreme.

b. Investigating the second principle

The second principle emphasises upon matter having no beginning or end and thus being uncreated.

Firstly, matter having no beginning or end cannot be scientifically or experimentally established. This is because the experimental dimensions are limited and no experiment can prove the infinity of the universe from the point of view of time and space.

Secondly, the assumption that matter has no end does not necessitate it having no creator. The assumption of a spatial movement requires the supposition of everlasting force from the moving agent, rather than not needing an impetus for the moving agent.

In addition, matter uncreated implies that it is a necessary existent and we have already established in lesson eight that it is impossible for matter to be a necessary existent.

c. Investigating the third principle

This principle denies that the universe is purposeful. This will naturally result in the denial of the existence of the Creator and consequently once the existence of God the Wise is proven this principle will be nullified. In addition to this, one might question as to how it is possible for an intelligent individual, after witnessing the astonishing order and harmonisation of the universe and the benefits that emanate forth from it, could fail to realise that the universe is purposeful.

d. Investigating the fourth principle

This principle of the materialist worldview recognises causation as being limited to the material realm and material phenomenon. This view has been severely criticised, the most important points are as follows:

1. According to this rule a new (immaterial) existent could never come into existence.

However we witness the commencement of subsequent existents, especially in the realm of the human being and animals. The most significant of them are life, intelligence, intellectuality, emotions and will etc.

The materialists assert that these phenomena are also nothing more than the special characteristics and properties of matter.

In order to answer their claim one must say that, firstly the peculiaritythat cannot be separated from the matter and from those things belonging to matter is it that it accepts division and it has a magnitude. These peculiarities are not present in the phenomena mentioned.

2. Secondly, the phenomena, which are said to be the special properties of matter, also exist in lifeless matter. In other words matter was lacking these special characteristics and subsequently they appeared. Therefore the appearance of these existents, which are known as special properties, require an originator who has initiated this into the matter. This originator itself is the cause that bestows existence or is the creating cause.

3.Another serious criticism for their claim is based on their principle, that all phenomena in the universe must be pre-determined (jabr), because by effecting and becoming effected in matter there is no place for choice and free-will (ikhtiyār).

Opposing free-will in addition to it being against self-evidence (badāhah) and commonsense, necessitates it denying any type of responsibility and value for spirituality and ethics. By denying responsibility and any ethical value system, the results for human life are surely clear.

4.Finally with the understanding, that matter cannot be the necessary existence, as already established, one must consider that it (matter) has a cause, which cannot be classified as a preparatory or natural cause. This is because this type of relationship and correlation can only be imagined between the materials with each other. However not all types of matter can have this type of relationship with its cause. Thus the cause that brought matter into existence is the cause beyond the physical realm, and is the creating cause.

Questions:

1- Explain the principles of the materialist worldview.

2- Define matter and material (corporeal).

3- Criticise the first principle of the materialist worldview.

4- Criticise the second principle.

5- Criticise the third principle.

6- Explain the problems of the fourth principle.

LESSON FIFTEEN: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND ITS CRITICISM

Mechanical materialism and dialectical materialism

Materialism comes in different forms, and each one has a distinctive explanation for the beginning of the universe and its phenomena. In the beginning of the modern age, materialism by utilising the concepts of Newton on physics, interpreted the appearance of phenomena on the basis of mechanical movement. They considered every movement as an effect of a particular moving force, which entered from outside upon the momentary body.

They assumed that the universe was like a large machine from within which there was a moving force. This force would then transfer itself from one section to another causing the ‘large machine’ to move.

This theory was named as mechanical materialism. This belief however contained many weaknesses and was subsequently criticised by their adversaries. An example of such a criticism was:

If every movement is an effect of an external moving force, then there must be an external force for that prime matter (māddah al-awwaliyyah). This therefore necessitates the acceptance of a force beyond the physical realm (metaphysical), which has become the source for the initial movement in the realm of matter.

Another such criticism was that only conventional and transitional movements could be interpreted as mechanical forces. The phenomena in the universe could not all be limited to spatial changes, and this further necessitates the acceptance of other causes and agents for the appearance of several such phenomena.

The incapacity of mechanical materialism to answer these criticisms caused the materialists to search for other reasons to explain the metamorphosis of the universe.

They sought to at least prove that some movement was based on dynamics and that matter was in some way self-erupting.

Some of the founders of dialectical materialism (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles) by using the philosophical concepts of Hegel regarded the cause for movement to be the internal contradictory factor of the phenomena. In addition to accepting that matter is eternal and uncreated, and in the acceptance of the universal movement and the efficacy of the phenomena upon each other, they explain their assumption based upon three subjective principles:

1. Principle of internal contradictions.

2. Principle of sublimation or conversion of quantity (kammi) to quality (kayfi).

3. Principle of negating the negation or the dialectic of nature.

It is here that we will give a brief explanation of these principles followed by a criticism:

a. The principle of contradiction

Dialectical materialism recognises every phenomenon to be composed of two incompatible elements: thesis and anti-thesis. They cause the transmutation of the phenomenon in such a way that the anti-thesis dominates, synthesising a new phenomenon.

For example an egg, which contains within itself an embryo, eventually develops by consuming the food provided and turns into a chicken, through the processes know as synthesis. Positive and negative electricity are a good example of contradiction within the phenomena of physics. Also addition and subtraction is known as antilogy in elementary mathematics, and integral and non-integral are known as antilogies in higher mathematics.

These consequences are also present in the sociological history of man. For example, in Capitalism the working class is the anti-thesis for the capitalist class. If they gradually take over, then this synthesis will result in a socialist and communist society.

Criticism of the principle of contradiction

It cannot be denied that by arranging two material existents next to each other, it can result in such a way that one affects the other by weakening or even destroying it. For example we know of the effects that water has on fire. However this outcome is not universal and cannot be recognised as a principle. There are several instances contrary to this rule.

The presence of this type of contradiction between the phenomena is not considered impossible under the understanding of classical logic, philosophy and metaphysics.

Rather it is the combination of two opposites in one subject, which is considered impossible. They have brought absurd examples for the combination of two opposites, such as the combination of addition and subtraction or integral and non-integral etc, aswell as the false prediction for the establishment of a dictatorship of proletarianism in capitalist countries.

If every phenomenon was composed of two opposites, then there must be another combination for every thesis and anti-thesis. Each one is a phenomenon and according to the principle mentioned they must have a combination of two opposites. This would mean that every limited phenomenon would have to contain infinite opposites.

However, the most basic criticism, that can be levied against this assumption (internal contradiction being considered as the cause for movement, supposedly compensating for the flaw in mechanical materialism), is that there is no intellectual argument to support it. In addition to this there is no denial in accepting the existence of a mechanical movement due to external force acting upon it. Unless of course, it can be accepted that the movement of a football is an effect of its internal contradictions and not an effect of the contact of the foot of a football player!

b. The principle of the quantum leap

By focusing upon the transformations in the universe, we realise that not all these transformations are gradual or step-by-step. In several instances a subsequent phenomenon may appear, but is dissimilar to the former phenomenon, and therefore cannot be counted as a result or outcome of a

former movement and transmission. The materialists have interpreted another principle for this process known as the quantum leap or conversion of quantity to quality. They explain that the conversion of quantity occurs when it reaches a special point and causes the appearance of quality. For example, when water increases in temperature to a degree whereby it changes into a vapoury state, and when metal changes its form and state from a solid to a liquid when it is heated to a certain level. Also an example can be that when conflicts in a society reach a certain level, they can cause a revolution.

Criticisms of the principle of the quantum leap

Firstly, a quantity could never be converted into a quality. At most, it is possible that the appearance of a phenomenon could be conditional upon the existence of a specific quantity. For example, it is not the temperature level of water, which changes it into vapour, (which is another quality), but this change is conditional upon the existence of a certain temperature.

Secondly, it is not necessary that this quantity is acquired as an effect of the gradual increase in the temperature of antecedent quantities. However it is possible that it is acquired as an effect of the decrease of antecedent quantities. For example vapour changing into water, is conditional upon the decrease in temperature.

Thirdly, the qualitative transformation (quality related) is not always sudden and impulsive, rather in many cases it occurs gradually, as the melting of glass and wax is gradual.

On these bases the only thing that can be accepted is that the necessity of a particular quantity is needed for the actualisation of some natural phenomena. However this cannot be considered, as the conversion of quantity to quality and one cannot accept the gradual increase of quantity as a necessity for the transformation of a phenomenon. Furthermore one cannot accept this condition as universal for the qualitative changes (of phenomena). Hence sublimation cannot be recognised as a universal rule.

c. The principle of negating the negation

The meaning of negating the negation, sometimes also known as the principle of exploring nature or the perfection of contradiction, is that during the course of change in dialectics, a thesis is always negated by an anti-thesis, and an anti-thesis is negated through synthesis in turn. A plant negates the seed and is negated by subsequent seeds, and an embryo negates an egg and is negated through a chicken. The new phenomena however, are always more perfect than the former ones, and the dialectical course is always vertical and towards perfection. This is the most significant element in the principle of negating the negation, which highlights the developing aspect with a tendency towards perfection.

Criticisms of the principle of negating the negation There is no doubt that in every transformation and transition there is the disintegration of previous states and circumstances, before the appearance of a new state and environment. If this is considered as the principle of negating the negation then this principle is nothing but solely a change or transformation. However the explanation -they give for this principle, with which they

justify the direction of movement being towards perfection, and upon which they claim that all movements are towards perfection, as well as each transformation of the universe is evolutional, meaning, that every new phenomenon is necessarily more perfect than the previous one- is not acceptable. Is uranium, which turns into lead through the effect of radiation more perfect? Is the plant, which dries producing no seed or fruit more perfect? Therefore the only conclusion that can be accepted is that some natural phenomenon can, as a result of movement and transformation, reach perfection. Perfection cannot be considered as a universal rule for all of the phenomena in the universe.

It would be appropriate here to remind the reader that the assumption upon which these principles were universally established, only define the rules which have already been proven in the natural sciences, such as how the phenomena come into appearance.

However the existence of universal rules does not mean that we are without need of an originator or the cause, which bestows existence. We have already established in our previous lessons that matter and materiality are possible existents and they require a necessary existence.

Questions:

1. What is the difference between mechanical and dialectical materialism?

2. Explain the principle of contradiction and its criticism?

3. Explain the principle of the quantum leap?

4. Explain the principle of negating the negation?

5. Does the universality of the assumption of the principle of negating the negation, establish the needlessness of the cause that bestows existence?

LESSON SIXTEEN: ONENESS OF GOD

Introduction

In previous lessons the essentiality of the existence of God the Creator of the universe was established. In later lessons we investigated the materialist worldview and provided an explanation of their various criticisms. To assume the universe was free from a creator became apparently absurd and the interpretations given were unacceptable.

It is now an appropriate time to expand upon the issues relating to the oneness of God and unveil the flaws in polytheistic thought.

With reference to the appearance and alteration of polytheistic beliefs, there have been distinctive opinions between the sociologists. However none of these arguments can be considered as clear or authentic.

It may be possible to state that the initial reason for the inclination towards polytheism was the appearance of numerous heavenly and earthly phenomena, which, lead to the view that a particular god manages each phenomenon. Some related goodness to the god of good and evil to the god of evil. This resulted in the belief of there being two sources for the world.

From another angle by focusing upon the effect of the light (nūr) of the sun, moon and stars, upon the earthly phenomena, they discerned that the celestial objects have a type of lordship (rubūbiyyah) compared to the earth.

In addition to the above, man’s tendency towards having a tangible God became the reason for creating different idols, signs and symbols for worshiping their presumed gods. These idols and symbols then gradually became the fundamental aspect of belief among the less intelligent. Every nation, perhaps every tribe on the basis of ambiguity and doubt established customs and rituals for idol worship as an answer for the intrinsic tendency of god worshiping. Furthermore, in order to sanctify their animalistic and egoistic tendencies, they moulded these tendencies into religious rituals. Such rituals like dancing festivals, wine-drinking fiestas, Epicureanism, etc still exist among the idol worshipper.

However more significant than the mentioned reasons, were the egotistic interests and arrogance of tyrants and authoritarians, which caused them to abuse the beliefs of simpletons in order to expand their power and rule. Furthermore they considered a type of lordship for themselves and also regarded satanic worship as part of their rituals. Such examples can be seen in the past empires of China, India, Iran and Egypt.

Nevertheless polytheistic religions came under the influence of different factors and discernment among humans. Thus a barrier was formed preventing people from understanding the true perfection, which was supposed to be applied by the divine and monotheistic religions. The Noble Qur’an portrays such struggles encountered by the prophets (a) of God and the polytheists.

On these bases, the foundation of polytheistic belief is to believe in the lordship of an existent other than God the Supreme, for the appearance of some of the universe’s phenomena. Furthermore many polytheists had faith in the oneness of the Creator, and in reality they accepted the oneness of creatorship. However on a lower realm they recognised other second level

gods who administrated the world independently, and they called God the Creator, the God of gods or Lord of the lords (rabb al-arbāb).

These gods, who administrate according to some, were known as angels, and were called by the polytheist Arabs, the daughters of God. Some recognised them as fairies and genies or some regarded them as the spirits of stars or humans from the past, or as a type of invisible existent.

In lesson ten indications were made that creatorship and true lordship are inseparable from each other, belief in the creatorship of God and the acceptance of the lordship of others is not compatible. By explaining the contradiction in this belief, it is possible to nullify the argument of those who held such a view.

In order to establish the oneness of God, the Supreme, many arguments have been demonstrated in the different books of theology and philosophy. Here we are going to demonstrate an argument, which encompasses the oneness of lordship and rejects the polytheistic beliefs.

Proofs for the Oneness of God

The assumption that the universe has two or more gods can solely be imagined through a few possibilities:

Firstly it can be considered that every phenomenon of the universe is created and is an effect of all the assumed gods. The second assumption could be that each particular group of phenomena is an effect (or created by a particular god) of one of the assumed gods. Finally the third assumption is that all of the phenomena are created by one of these assumed gods and the other gods are recognised as the managers of the universe.

However it is impossible to assume that every phenomenon has several gods. If two or more gods created an existent, it would imply that each of the assumed gods would create an existent. This would result in many existents, whereas in reality there is only one.

If it is to be assumed that a particular god creates each particular phenomenon, this will imply that each phenomenon exists because of its particular god. Furthermore they must not require or depend upon any other existent unless the (dependency) need returns to their particular god. This type of requirement or need must be upon the existent, which is created by that very creator who has created that particular group.

In other words, the assumption of having more than one god necessitates the order in the universe to be multifarious and deteriorating. In reality there is only one order and all phenomena are related and effectual upon each other and at the same time need each other.

Furthermore the present phenomenon is linked with the former phenomenon and every coexisting phenomenon creates grounds for future phenomena. Hence a universe, which is linked and related to each other (interwoven with each other) is governed under a sole order and it (this universe) cannot be an effect of several causes that bestow existence.

Moreover, if the assumption is made that the creator of the creation is one, and other gods are the administrators and governors of the universe, this is also incorrect, because every effect with all its being is established on the cause that bestows existence (‘illah mufīda lil-wujūd). No independent existent has the means to interfere unless the results and outcomes of effects

of a cause are all under the authority of the existence-bestowing agent and take place with the will of the Divine. In this case none of them would be considered as lord because the true meaning of ‘lord’ means the one who can freely and independently intervene in the creation. However there is no intervention, but in the dissipation of the lordship given by the Creator and with the power He has bestowed. This form of executing does not contradict with the oneness of lordship because the oneness of creatorship, does not contradict ‘the creating’ with the Divine decree of the Creator. In the Noble Qur’an and traditions we find a similar type of creation or origination based on Allah’s support and godly power. As it has been mentioned with regards to Prophet Jesus (a) that:“ and when you would createA from clay the form of a bird, with My leave, and you would breathe into it and it would become a bird, with My leave” (al-Māi’da:110).

And also in another verse we find:

“And those who direct the affairs [of creatures]” (al-Nāzi’āt:5).

It can be concluded that the illusion of having several gods, stems from the comparison made between God and material causes, where many causes are not unusual. However it can never be accepted that several causes can bestow existence for an effect, or that several lords and independent administrators can be assumed for administrating the universe.

Based on this argument for nullifying this illusion, one must focus upon the meaning and the peculiarities of this cause that bestows existence until it is known that the profusion of this cause is impossible. Furthermore one must contemplate upon the coherence of the creation until reaching the realisation that several gods could not possibly create this type of order, or numerous lords administer this type of universe.

Likewise it became clear for some of the qualified and saintly individuals of God, that by accepting Divine authority (wilāyah al-takwīniyyah) in a setting where there is no independent lordship or creatorship over them, the oneness of God would not be negated. The legislative authority (wilāyah al-tashrī’iyyah) of the Prophet (s) and Imams (a) is not inconsistent with the Divine legislative lordship (rubūbiyyah al- tashrī’iyyah), because it comes with the Divine degree.

Questions:

1- Explain the causes for the development of polytheism.

2- What is the basis of polytheism?

3- Why can one not assume that a phenomenon has several gods?

4- What difference is caused if one considers that the creation created by one god has several lords to administer it?

5- Why can one not regard every group of creation to be created by its particular god?

6- How would you criticise the assumption that the entire universe is created by one God, and at the same time claim that there are many lords and executers?

7- From where does the illusion of several gods come from, and how can it be nullified?

8- Why does it make no difference to the oneness of lordship and creatorship, if one believes in the Divine authority for the saints?