A Commentary on Theistic Arguments

A Commentary on Theistic Arguments18%

A Commentary on Theistic Arguments Author:
Translator: Hassan Allahyari
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category: Monotheism
ISBN: 964-438-362-1

A Commentary on Theistic Arguments
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 20 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 17071 / Download: 5244
Size Size Size
A Commentary on Theistic Arguments

A Commentary on Theistic Arguments

Author:
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
ISBN: 964-438-362-1
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought


1

2

Chapter Eight: The Argument from Design

A thorough assessment of the much-celebrated argument that proceeds from the world’s orderly concatenation requires that three questions be carefully analyzed:

· What is order?

· Does order exist?

· Why does order exist?

The inquiry of these key questions, in addition to ensuring that the argument’s conclusions do not trespass beyond what is contained in its premises, should also shed light on some other secondary issues so their independent analysis will not be needed.

What is Order?

Order(nadhm) is not a quiddity(māhiyya) so it could be defined through its genus(jins) and differentia(fasl) . However, in order to insure that our inquiry proceeds from logically solid grounds, it is prudent to clarify the meaning of order, since if an inquiry is devoted to examining whether a certain notion is instantiated in the external world, then before acceptance or dismissal, it is imperative to elucidate what does that notion stand for.

Although order is not a quiddity, in terms of being a secondary philosophic intelligible(al-ma‛qūl al-thānī al-falsafī) , it is similar to quiddities. Order is reflected in the regularity of things, and the meaning of regularity, which is opposite to entropy, is evident. As will be reiterated at the end of the chapter, it is important to retain in mind that orderliness is opposite to entropy, not evil. Hence, even if there is evil in the world, its operation is orderly and it is bound by specific rules.

Regularity or orderliness can be conventional(e‛tebārī) , artificial(senā‛ī) , or factual(wāqe‛ī) . An example of conventional regularity would be the regularity of words of a sentence. The orderly arrangement of books of a library and the splendid complexities of a watch are instances of artificial regularity. Factual order is like the configuration of the animal body.

Although used in the analogical exposition(al-taqrīr al-tamthīlī) of the argument from design, artificial design is not, however, central to its inquiry and in fact analogy(tamthīl) has little significance in demonstrative discussions. The argument’s analogical exposition­­ could run, for instance, as follows: As it is justified to infer from the labyrinth complexities of a watch that it has a designer, likewise, it is not irrational to trace the orderliness of the world to a cosmic orderer(al-nādhim) . In brief, in these versions the similarity of artificial design and cosmic orderliness is extended to their similarity in being the work of an intelligent designer.

Factual order, the grounds whereby foundations of the argument from design is laid, is neither indebted to conventions of the society nor to the imagination of inventors. Its abode is the external reality and it is apprehended from the comparison of external things. Factual order has three kinds:

1. Causal order(al-nadhm al-‛illī)

2. Teleological order(al-nadhm al-ghā’ī)

3. Immanent order(al-nadhm al-dākhilī)

Causal order reflects the cognation(musānikha) of a cause with its effect. As instanced by the verse, “Everyone acteth after his own mold”[155] causes only produce certain effects, and certain effects are produced only by certain causes. Teleological order represents the relationship of an effect with its final cause. It means that events advance towards specific goals and not every event can produce every outcome. The denial of the former and this kind of order amounts to the denial of the principle of causation, which would indicate the rule of entropy and chaos over the world and that anything could be produced by anything.

Immanent order reflects the regularity of internal parts of a configuration. It is exclusive to things, which have prima matter(al-mādda al-ūlā) and form(sūra) , genus and differentia, or are totalities of subordinate parts. Immanent order is inconceivable for something that is externally sheer, that is, is not made of extraneous parts.

On numerous occasions, the Noble Qur’ān alludes to these tripartite regularities of things; and in some verses, like the verse“Our Lord is He Who gave unto everything its form, and then guided it,”[ 156] the Divine Book mentions all three together. This verse speaks of God as the efficient cause of all things Who has furnished them with an impeccable “form” or regularity and guided them towards their goals.

In the light of this, it is fair to state that the regularity of members of a concatenation - on which the argument from design is based - is only conceivable between a series of things, which function towards a common objective. Therefore, the argument from design, contrary to other arguments such as the arguments from hudūth, motion, and contingency, cannot be organized with consideration to just one entity. Rather, it requires an ensemble, which is perceived in the context of its members and in relation to a common objective.

Does Order Exist?

At the threshold of inquiry into the existence of factual order, it should be kept in mind that the presence of factual order is perceivable in three spheres: the natural world(‛ālam al-mādda) , the mundus imaginalis(‛ālam al-khiyāl) , and the world of intellects(‛ālam al-‛uqūl) . The first category of order is discerned by the empirical sciences; the second is studied by the mathematical sciences, logic, and philosophy; and Gnosticism inquires into the orderliness of intellectual realities. However, the sole field of critique and apology in the context of the argument from design is the orderliness of the natural world.

The minor premise of the argument from design is not a purely empirical premise. Design and orderliness is not a sensible quality, which can be apprehended by sensation. It is similar to the principle of causation, which is not sensually discerned, since the maximum sensory perception with respect to causation is the observation of constant succession and concurrence of changes in physical beings. In the case of natural order, however, we do not perceive something as palpably sensible as succession and concurrence of events. Order is an elaborate regularity and concatenation between two or more things; and sensation(ehsās) cannot detect such regularity and concatenation. In fact, it is our reason that discerns the presence of orderliness and design in natural entities from our experiential and sensual perceptions. Occasionally, if natural order is mentioned as a sensory object, it is because reason detects it with the assistance of the senses, as it is held that reason apprehends motion with the help of sensation. Therefore, individuals, who deny the epistemic worth of the rational approach and consider sensation(ehsās) the sole means of knowledge, can never have definite knowledge with respect to the presence of order.

One need be reminded that if the argument’s minor premise is conjectural, the conclusion of the argument will be conjectural as well, because a syllogism’s conclusion is always defined by its weakest premise. Furthermore, if the argument’s minor premise relates the presence of order and design at a cosmic scale, given that the argument is valid, a cosmic orderer(al-nādhim) and designer will be proved. But if the argument is founded on an order of a rather limited scope, the argument’s conclusion will be in proportion to the limited order included in its premise.

The presence of order in the world can be affirmed by two different approaches: the purely rational approach and the rational-sensual approach, which was just indicated. Difference between the two is important to notice. In brief, through syllogism du pourqoi(al-burhān al-limmī) - that is, arguing from transcendental sources and using the Divine names of beauty and glory as middle terms to the existence of order in the world - reason has the capacity to not only infer the universal orderliness of the world, but also to establish its perfection. For instance, through syllogism du pourqoi, al-Ghazzālī traces certain Divine attributes such as the Creator, the All-Knowledgeable, the Generous, Omnipotent, and so forth, to the perfection of the world, which He has created. Shaykh al-Ishrāq approves al-Ghazzālī’s method of inferring world’s perfection from the attributes of its efficient cause. However, one who is arguing from the attributes of the cosmic Creator to cosmic orderliness and perfection cannot lend his knowledge of the cosmic Creator to a syllogism, which intends to prove Him. The affirmation of this sort of expansive and universal order, which dominates the entire realm of existence, is far beyond the scope of empiricism, which can only relate the limited portion of the cosmos, which is within the sphere of human sensation.

Although empiricism cannot indicate a universal cosmic regularity, nevertheless, an overall order is conveniently provable. This is indebted to the evident immanent and teleological regularities of things discernable to man - whether they pertain to nature, the mundus imaginalis, or the intellectual world. For instance, the Peripatetic philosophers infer the presence of plant and animal souls from the many coordinated activities of faunae and florae, which are not because of their body; and Shaykh al-Ishrāq[157] argues for the existence of their archetypes(arbāb al-anwā‛) on the basis of their intelligent and wise orderliness. Moreover, if the inquiry of how certain objectives are realized by certain behaviors of the natural elements leads to the creation of various branches of empirical sciences, then these behaviors are marked by knowledge and contrivance. In light of this observation, the presence of design, at least on a limited scale, is not deniable. Hence, the tenability of the argument from design lies with the veridicality of its major premise.

Why does Order Exist?

The inquiry of the major premise of the argument from design is devoted to establishing whether the presence of order in the world can be traced to an intelligent designer. In other words, it assesses the veridicality of a universal major premise, which assigns every order to an orderer(al-nādhim) and rules out the possibility of haphazardness. That is because if some orders are brought about by intelligent causal efficacy and some may be haphazard, then - given that the argument is in the form of a first-figure syllogism, which in order to be conclusive, must include a universal major premise - the existence of an orderer cannot be concluded.

It is important to notice that in demonstrative reasoning, it is only epistemic certitude, which can provide logical grounds of inference. Although psychological certitude, which is mostly the result of individual habits and social predilections, is beneficial to religious faith; it cannot withstand rational critique and cannot relay cognitive judgments to others.

Among the methods tried to prove the major premise of the argument is probability. It has been argued that since the likeliness of haphazard occurrence of the natural world’s splendid regularity is almost zero, therefore, it cannot be by chance and is indebted to a knowledgeable causal efficacy.

However, there are some points, which undermine the tenability of this perspective:

First: Probability approximates the likelihood of haphazard and desultory occurrence of an orderly arrangement of elements to zero, nonetheless, it never reduces it to zero. Therefore, it may be able to deliver a sort of simplistic confidence and psychological certitude; however, it can never entail cognitive certitude.

Second: The need of contingents with respect to the Necessary and the impossibility of chance are based on definite demonstrations(barāhīn) , nevertheless as far as the arrangement of the natural elements, regardless of their contingency and equidistance to existence and nonexistence, is concerned, chance and haphazardness cannot be easily ruled out. This is because all conceivable arrangements of natural elements have equal probability with one another.

For instance, the proponent of the probability argument may analogize the orderly nature of the world to a series of one thousand coins, which are marked from one to one thousand. The chances of haphazard arrangement of such a series of coins in a away that coin number one be placed first and coin number two second, and so on until coin one number thousand thousandth, is almost zero. Therefore, if an arrangement as such is rendered, it is not irrational to infer that the arranger is an intelligent agency. However, if this example is carefully analyzed, it becomes clear that all of the other conceivable scenarios have an equally weak probability. Even if coins were arranged in a different order, for instance, if they were arranged from one thousand to one, the odd coins were placed ahead of the even coins, or vice versa, or they were arranged in the most disorderly fashion perceivable, all of the arrangements would have an equal probability in comparison with one another.

If the existence of an all-knowledgeable designer is not already established through rational deduction and the possibility of haphazard occurrence of the present concatenation is not ruled out, the present or even the most perfect concatenation will have an equal likelihood in comparison with any other perceivable concatenation - including the worst and the ugliest. In other words, should each one of the perceivable concatenations be compared with one another, none of them will have more or less probability than another one.

Likelihood is involved when the probability of the present or most perfect concatenation is compared with the sum of the probabilities of other perceivable concatenations. It is in such a situation that it is legitimate to assert that the probability of the present ensemble’s desultory arrangement is close to zero; therefore, the probability of the opposite side, which is the totality of all other perceivable concatenations, is close to one. However, notice that the external reality is always one of the perceivable arrangements and the totality that encompasses some or all of the non-perfect concatenations is a mental phenomenon. Reality always bears one of the perceivable arrangements, and whatever arrangement it may be, it has an equal probability against the present or most perfect concatenation.

Third: As explained earlier, probability - even if it is regarded with respect to a specific instance and not a mental totality - is not a real attribute of a thing. As a mental and practical reification(e‛tebār) , it only indicates the reasonable extent of expectation and hope a person should have about something. However, as far as the external world is concerned, probability does not relate anything about it.

Probability can be helpful for the practical reason(al-‛aql al-‛amalī) . In fact, its valuable applications in the coordination of individual and social acts are not deniable. This is the reason why in disciplines where the overriding objective is practical solution of problems and in whereby comprehension of reality is not critically important, the usage of probability is very popular and even imperative. However, with respect to philosophical and theological doctrines, where truth is the highest consideration and the inquiry does not acquiesce to anything less than certitude, application of probability is futile and erroneous.

To authenticate the cogency of a given argument, as explained earlier, it is important that the truth of its premises and their entailment of the sought conclusion be assessed. We found that the minor premise of the argument from design was by and large acceptable, while its major premise does not have rational foundations.

However, even if the disputability of the universality of its major premise were set aside, the problem of an argument, which proceeds from the intelligent coordination of a certain concatenation, is that, even if conclusive, it does not prove a first efficient cause. It merely demonstrates an agency responsible for a particular design and knowledgeable thereof. However, whether it is above contingency, hudūth, and flux, is entirely open to question. Even if the argument were based on the orderliness of the entire world, it would indicate that its orderer is an all-powerful, knowledgeable, and incorporeal being, which is not included in the harmonious totality, nonetheless, it would not establish that his existence is necessary. Therefore, in order to prove the necessity of the designer, further arguments, such as the demonstration of contingency and necessity, would have to be elicited.

In short, if the weakness of the major premise were to be overlooked, the presence of order could be traced to an orderer, and since order is a knowledgeable act, the orderer’s attribute of knowledge would be affirmed as well. However, this still does not indicate whether the orderer has necessity or unity. For these limitations of the argument from design, the sages of the Islamic philosophical schools of Illumination(hikma al-ishrāq) , Peripatetic(hikma al-mashā’) , and Transcendent Wisdom(al-Hikma al-Muta‛āliyya) have demurred from it. Certain references to the orderly nature of the world in some of their works are in the context of arguments of Divine attributes such as unity, knowledge, and wisdom. Again, this is because the essential attributes of the necessary are identical with His Essence, however, given their conceptual difference, it is possible to conduct independent analysis and inquiry with respect to each one of them.

The Argument from Design and the Noble Qur’ān

It is deemed prudent to indicate, though in brief, that if the premises of an argument are purely rational, the argument is a demonstration(burhān) . If the premises comprise rational as well as generally-accepted subjects(musallamāt) , but the argument relies mostly on the generally-accepted subjects, such an argument is decent contention or kindly exhortation(al-jidāl al-ahsan) . But if the premises are generally accepted subjects, which lack rational foundations, the argument is a fallacy and void contention.

The demonstrative shortcoming of the argument from design in indicating the Deity’s existence does not imply that it has no exhortative value. The argument, in fact, can conveniently inspire consent of certain individuals - namely the ones who admit that the world is marked with orderliness and believe in the Necessary’s unity and “Creatorness”(khāliqiyya) - to acknowledge to al-tawhīd al-rūbūbī and after that al-tawhīd al-‛ibādi.[158] For this reason, the Noble Qur’ān resorts to kindly exhortation of the polytheists and idolaters of Hijāz, a group that constituted a considerable portion of population at the time of revelation.

At the early period of Islam’s rise, idolatry was the chief social force, which opposed Islam. Idolaters were those infidels who had faith in a single God but believed that idols were their archetypes(arbāb al-anwā‛) , which mediated between God and His creatures. The people of Hijāz offered sacrifices before idols and worshipped them in order to achieve their wishes through their intercession.

Another social group was the People of the Book. These people were mostly the Jewry of Medina and Christians whose presence was felt primarily in the southern parts of the peninsula. In addition to these two groups, the Qur’ān mentions another group of people who ascribed their affairs to time(dahr) and considered it the factor, which determined their lives and deaths. After the rise of Islam and establishment of its political domination, these dogmatic patterns were altered; and as it appears from the conversations and debates narrated from the Shiite Imams, ideological opposition to Islam mostly manifested in the form of schools, which negated the very essence of the Necessary.

The Noble Qur’ān, as the book of guidance for the entire human race, satisfies the needs of the gentry of sages as well as the commonality. In some verses - such as the chapter of Monotheism(Sūra al-Tawhīd) and the first verses of the chapter of Iron(Sūra al-Hadīd) - one can see the profundity, which, over the many ages, has inspired Islamic theosophy and Gnosticism with a sense of direction. On the other hand, the kindly exhortation of some other verses addresses those people who have been inflicted by polytheism and have been led astray with respect to al-tawhīd al-rubūbī and al-tawhīd al-ibādī. As God, the Exalted, decrees enjoinment by wisdom, admonishment, and kindly exhortation - “And call those unto way of thy Lord with wisdom and kindly exhortation and dispute with them in the manner which is the best”[159] - the apostles in general, and their last and greatest in particular, were heedful of their audience’s capacity of comprehension. They exemplified the creed “We the congregation of prophets converse to people according to the capacity of their intellects.”[160]

In a lengthy tradition in Al-Ihtejāj, when Imam Ja‛far al-Sādiq, peace be with him, was asked about the jadals of the Prophet, he answered that God had obliged him to use jadal and the Noble Qur’ān, on occasions, uses it as well.[161] On many issues, which the Shiite Imams, peace be with them, have propounded with demonstrations(barāhīn) , they have, on certain appropriate occasions, taken recourse to admonition and kindly exhortation(al-jadal al-ahsan) .

In his Al-Tawhīd, al-Shaykh al-Sadūq, blessings be with him, narrates that two different individuals asked Imam Ja‛far al-Sādiq, peace be with him, whether God has the power to place the earth in an egg-sized tiny container in a way that neither the earth loses its size nor the container expands. The Imam, peace be with him, gives one of them a rhetorical(jadalī) answer and the other a demonstrative one.

In response to the first inquisitor, the Imam, peace be with him, says “Open your eyes, do not you see the expansive heavens and the earth? How God has placed something which is bigger than the earth in your eyes which are smaller than an egg.” This answer was sufficient to satisfy the inquisitor.[162]

In his answer to the second individual, while stressing that by His infinite power, God can do everything, the Imam says “What you have asked is impossible and nothing(lā shai’) .”[163] That is, although God is powerful to do everything, however, you have not asked about a “thing”; therefore, what you have inquired about is not an exception to the Divine omnipotence; rather, it is excluded from the domain of power. This response of the holy Imam, peace be with him, comprises a profound philosophical analysis about impossible phenomena that an impossible thing has a notion the extension(misdāq) of which is “nothing”.

The argument from design has been used in the Noble Qur’ān in a rhetorical manner. It addresses those polytheists whose behavior and belief God, the Exalted, describes thus: “And if thou asketh them who created the heavens and the earth, certainly will they say, ‘God.’”[164] “And worship they besides God, what can neither hurt them nor profit them, and say they: ‘These are our intercessors with God.’”[165]

The Qur’ān is addressing a congregation, which on the one hand believes in God’s unity and acknowledges that the world is ruled by an intelligent administration and orderliness, and on the other, holds that this administration and orderliness pertain to archetypes(arbāb al-anwā‛) , which are intercessors between God and His creatures. In this situation, where the premises of the argument from design are grounds of mutual consensus, the Noble Qur’ān resorts to kindly exhortation and, in a rhetorical argument, traces God’s creatorness to al-tawhīd al-rubūbī and al-tawhīd al-‛ibādī.

In theism’s course of descent(al-qaus al-nuzūlī) , every higher level substantiates the truth of its lower level. In brief, the Essential unity(al-tawhīd al-dhātī) indicates the Creator’s unity(al-tawhīd fi al-khāliqiyya) , the Creator’s unity is sufficient evidence to yield knowledge to Lord’s(Rabb) unity(al-tawhīd al-rubūbī) , which in its own right, establishes al-tawhīd al-‛ibādī. Similarly, in its course of ascent(al-qaus al-su‛ūdī) , al-tawhīd al-‛ibādī can be traced to al-tawhīd al-rubūbī, and the fact that He is the Lord(Rabb) and is indicated by His creatorness; and His creatorness is proved by His Essential Necessity.

The Argument from Design and the Problem of Evil

The question whether evil exists in the world or not is an independent inquiry. However, even if the dispute of evil’s existence is laid aside, the fact is that the argument from design, in whatever form constructed, is immune to the problem of evil. This is because as long as a given concatenation is harmoniously functioning towards its objective, it can be asserted that it has design and orderliness; and there is no mutual necessity between having design and regularity and having a virtuous objective.

If the world is orderly, then evil, if existent at all, functions within the structure of the world’s order. An animal, which produces poison, does not change any and every food into poison. Rather, he too behaves within the organized network of relations and produces poison and destruction within the boundaries of the existent order.

The argument from design can be rendered defective only if either the present design’s purposefulness is denied or it is not ascribed to an orderer(nādhim) . However, the argument’s tenability is not subject to absence or presence of evil in the world.

Chapter Nine: The Argument from Miracles

Miraculous acts - such as the unusual incidents, which occur after invocations and prayers; succor from unseen sources in individuals’ lives like heeling of the ill; uncontrollable and unpredictable incidents, which lead to solutions of social predicaments; or flashes of thoughts, which suddenly solve scholarly and scientific problems - have been used in the west’s Judeo-Christian theology as premises of an argument for the existence of the Necessary. It has been asserted that such incidents are true and do not have any physical or natural cause, therefore, their cause, which is not physical, exists.

This contention, if not adduced further by some other argument, such as the demonstration of contingency and necessity, is not able to prove the Necessary and is subject to many objections.

First, individuals who have not experienced such extraordinary incidents, and to whom these experiences have not been narrated in an ascertaining manner, can have doubts about the very occurrence of such incidents.

Second, suppose such incidents do occur, their attribution to the Necessary and the consequent affirmation of the Necessary’s existence is open to question. Attribution of these incidents to the Necessary can held valid only if three conditions are satisfied: First, the principle of causation is accepted and the “causedness”(al-ma‛lūliyya) of these incidents is established. Second, all of the natural and metaphysical factors, which can generate these incidents, are taken into account. Third, the causality of all of these conceivable factors, except for the causality of the Almighty Necessary, is invalidated.

The argument in the form presented above is subject to the criticism by people who are skeptical about the principle of causation. Moreover, even if causation is acknowledged, since other factors, which can explain these incidents have not been conceived and ruled out, the argument does not entail the existence of the Necessary.

Extraordinary and unexpected incidents, which occur in the realm of soul - such as the sudden solutions of scientific and scholarly questions or practical virtues, which are instantaneously attained through passionate spiritual experiences - can be rooted in the past life of the person blessed with such cognitive or practical benedictions.

Our teacher, ‛Allāmah Sha‛rānī, Paradise of Allah be for him, used to say that sometimes a catechumen hears something from his teacher or sees it in a book and chronicles it in a corner of his memory. Then after twenty or thirty years when he assumes the post of teaching, during scholarly analyses, once again that previously heard or read matter appears in his mind. Inattentive towards the reason of such detection, he presumes that this is a flash of his own thought and assumes, No one has preceded me in this discovery. One such instance has occurred in the Al-Makāsib of our grand shaykh, al-Ansārī - may Allah bless his soul.

As profound a book as it is, Al-Makāsib is not a work to have been completed in a short time. Rather, the several years it has been written in have been a good portion of the life of our late Shaykh - may God bless his soul. This renowned jurisprudent, in one section of Al-Makāsib, quotes a discussion from the late ‛Allāmah al-Hillī; and then in another section that has been written perhaps a decade later, when that intimation reappears from his noble subconscious mind, and neither seeing it in the limited number of books he had nor recalling it in his recent readings, he assumes this is one of his own innovations and credits himself for it. Just as unknown factors exercise influence in the inward matters of the human being, they can prevail in his external matters as well.

The skeptic atheist can always maintain that the splitting of the sea by Moses, the Interlocutor, or his splitting the earth to swallow Korah, or the split of the moon by the signal of the Seal of Prophets, and incidents like the return of the sun, are all certainly extraordinary events, nonetheless, each one may have an unknown cause that, however not yet discovered, is possible to be identified one day.

Such extraordinary events of help from invisible sources can be instrumental in producing psychological certitudes. However, such certitude - which is actually a sort of confidence and practical satisfaction - does not bear cognitive certitude; and it is well established that in rational demonstrations(barāhīn) , nothing less than cognitive certitude is satisfactory.

Miracles in the View of Islamic Philosophers and Western Theologians

According to the Majestic Qur’ān, a miracle is a sign, which attests to the particular prophethood(al-nubūwa al-khāssa) of a person who has claimed prophethood. Islamic philosophers and mutakellimūn argue from the miracles of the most benevolent Prophet to his particular prophethood; and when a particular prophethood is proved, general prophethood(al-nubūwa al-‛āmma) [166] is proved as well, since no particular can exist without a universal, and no conditional without an absolute. Nevertheless, no Islamic philosopher or mutakellem has ever established an argument to prove the Necessary Essence based on miracles.

For certain individuals, miracles do not have any sort of indication with respect to religious doctrines. For instance, someone who does not accept the existence of God or some of His names and attributes such as the Guide(al-Hādī) , the Administrator(al-Mudabbir) , and so forth, or a person who does not believe in the general prophethood, or someone who doubts the principle of causation and considers chance and haphazardness possible, cannot infer the truth of religious tenets from an extraordinary event, which cannot be explained on the score of the known physical grounds.

If certain religious doctrines, such as the existence of God and the necessity of apostleship and religious guidance for people who do not have direct guidance from the Deity, are accepted, miracles can rationally indicate the prophethood of a specific person. From this perspective, miracles do not contradict the principle of causation and are not incompatible with natural laws; rather, their occurrence is an imperative law of existence.

If miracles were to contradict the principle of causation, then haphazardness and chance would be permissible, which in turn would make the inquiry of the existence of God irrelevant.

Extraordinary Events: Mu‛jiza, Karāma, I‛āna, and Ihāna

In kalāmi parlance there is a technical difference between different extraordinary acts. A mu‛jiza[167] is an extraordinary event, which is associated with a challenge to prove a certain prophethood. Being associated with a challenge is the hallmark, which distinguishes a mu‛jiza from other extraordinary events. If an extraordinary event takes place because of the will or the sacred soul of a saint, it is called karāma. If it happens because of the supplication of a righteous servant of God, it is called i‛āna[168] . Extraordinary events may occur as a result of causes, which are attained through learning and meditation such as sorcery. It is also possible that they take place to falsify someone who has falsely claimed prophethood and has challenged others. In the last case, an extraordinary event is called ihāna[169] . For instance, when al-Musaylama al-Kadhdhāb spat into a well to show to people that he has blessed it and that its water will increase, what happened was that even the little water, which was in the well dried. Although the exsiccation of the well in this manner was an extraordinary event, nevertheless, it was not what the perverted claimant had hoped and it led to his debasement.

The most unique characteristic of a mu‛jiza is that it illustrates God’s omnipotence. A prophet, who claims to have a message from the Absolute Origin, as his prophethood is extraordinary and does not come from finite and conditional sources, exhibits an extraordinary sign that attests to his connection to the Source of existence. Because God, the Exalted - Who undertakes the creation and guidance of all entities including the human beings - is not subject to sensual vision, His guidance is not effectuated in a direct manner with them. Rather, it is carried out by the few chosen servants, who with the chastity of their tongues and serenity of their hearts have the aptitude of Divine interlocution and vision. Thus, as instanced by the Qur’ān, His apostles appear with signs that testify to their connection to the Source of creation: “And We have sent thee [O Our Apostle Muhammad] unto mankind as [Our] Apostle, and God is sufficient a witness [thereof].”[170] The witness and attestation of God is that He manifests His extraordinary signs on the hands of His prophets.

Miracles as Rational Proofs

Miracles are proofs of particular prophethood; however, only people who are availed of reason can benefit from them. Someone who perceives miracles with physical eyes only and does not fathom what lies behind the appearance, may evince astonishment and wonder and even succumb to them, nevertheless, he is far from attaining a certitude, which is free of doubts and reservations.

In order to be able to ascertain a given prophethood, first, a reasonable person should be able to differentiate between an extraordinary act and an act, which is performed through artificial means. Second, he should recognize the mutual necessity between the claim’s veridicality and the miracle.

In the scene of challenge and defiance by Moses, the Interlocutor, since the magicians were better aware of sorcery’s limitations than other people, they instantaneously realized that the extraordinary act was beyond the means of sorcery; and already believing in God as the true Guide, they immediately embraced the Lord of Moses and stood firm in their faith. However, as for the people who merely saw a stick become a serpent and failed to apprehend its rational implications, just as they pinned their faith to Moses by watching a stick become a dragon, they crowded around the Samaritan by seeing the speech of a calf. While the Samaritan’s work was sorcery, and his call to the divinity of a calf, a dogma that reason testifies to its falsehood.

Ibn Sīnā in al-Ishārāt wa al-Tanbihāt, and Nasīr al-Din al-Tūsī in his commentary on the same book, divide miracles into two classes: practical miracles(al-mu‛jiza al-fe‛lī) and verbal miracles(al-mu‛jiza al-qaulī) . They hold that verbal miracles are more beneficial for the gentry of people afforded with erudition, whereas practical miracles are more befitting for the commonality.[171]

The Seal of the Prophets had many practical miracles, which mostly satisfied the commonalty. However, the gentry of the companions, well-aware of the profound meanings and exalted stature of the Noble Qur’ān, sufficed on the Qur’ān and never made any demands for practical miracles. The Majestic Qur’ān, the verbal miracle of the Seal of the Prophets, is an eternal miracle that with a clean and vociferous challenge attests to the prophethood of that Hadhrat, bliss be for him and his kin, for anyone who believes in God and His attributes.

Rational Possibility and Ordinary Impossibility of Miracles

It is sometimes presumed that miracles are rational impossibilities(al-muhālāt al-‛aqliyya) executed by God. However, just as miracles do not violate causation, they are not rationally impossible events either. A miracle is merely an ordinary impossibility(al-muhāl al-‛āddī) ; that is, it cannot be carried out by the finite and conditional implements; however, God’s omnipotence can perform what may be ordinarily impossible for others. An event that is beyond and inaccessible to the ordinary human capabilities and is not attainable by acts of meditation, is not in the capacity of anyone but God.

A stick’s becoming a serpent, or running water’s coming to a halt and other miracles are not rational impossibilities. For instance, it is not impossible that wood, with the progress of time and decomposition of its elements, become the food of a snake and be assimilated into its body, and then transform into sperm and become a snake. Similarly, a strong storm or dam can hinder the flow of water and deviate it or bring it to a halt. Nonetheless, the metamorphosis of a stick into a dragon or the halt in the flow of Nile - in the way done by Moses, the Interlocutor - or splitting the moon by the signal of the Beneficent Prophet, can neither be carried out by the finite implements, which are at man’s disposal nor by meditation and sorcery.

A rationally impossible thing cannot have an external extension. Therefore, when Imam Ja‛far al-Sādiq, peace be with him, was asked about God’s power to place the world in an egg-shell, he responded, “Although God’s power is infinite, nevertheless, what you are asking is a nothing.”

“Nothing”(lā shai) , like non-existence or conjunction of contradictories, is a concept, which does not narrate an external extension. Therefore, because it is nothing, it is not subject to the infinite power of God.

The Qur’ān, a Divine book revealed over twenty-three years upon the pure and holy heart of the Benevolent Messenger of Allah, bliss be for him and his kin, and free of contradictions and discrepancies, is not a rational impossibility. Rather the production of a work parallel to it is an ordinary impossibility(al-muhāl al-‛āddī) . Al-Shaykh al-Tūsī in al-Tibyān, and after him Amīn al-Islam al-Tabarsī in Majma‛ al-Bayān and many interpreters from the commonality of the Muslims, who consider miracles rational impossibilities, have tried to answer what they consider the criticism that Qur’ān is not a rational impossibility, and have tried to prove the rational impossibility of bringing a work parallel to the Noble Qur’ān. However, the fact is that neither are miracles rational impossibilities, nor is the Noble Qur’ān an extension of a rational impossibility.

The Noble Qur’ān’s purity from any discrepancey and its harmony and consistency, despite the fact that it was compiled in different circumstances during twenty-three years, is a reality, which is not attainable by ordinary means. God, the Exalted, says on this matter: “And if it had been from any other than God, they surely would have found in it much discrepancy.”[172] Similarly, the eloquence of the Majestic Qur’ān is not a rational impossibility. Instead, it is an ordinary impossibility that is coupled with a challenge from the Prophet - a challenge which does not seek to prove God or the general prophethood, but rather, proves the particular prophethood of the Benevolent Messenger of Allah, bliss be for him and his kin.

Chapter Three: The Demonstration of Contingency and Necessity

Notions of Contingency and Necessity and Signs of Contingency

When we observe things, which exist in the external world, including those in the nature, we notice that, by virtue of their essence, existence and nonexistence are not necessary for them. The truth of this claim is attested by their generation(hudūth) and corruption(fasād) , that is, the fact that at a time, they did not exist, then they found existence; and at a certain time, they will perish. If existence was necessary for them, they would not have been preceded or followed by nonexistence; and by the same token, if nonexistence was necessary for them, they would have never existed.

As explained earlier, an entity for which existence and external reality is necessary is called the necessary existent(al-wājib al-wujūd) ; and if nonexistence is necessary for it, it is an impossible existent(al-mumtani‛ al-wujūd) ; and if neither existence nor nonexistence is necessary for it, it is a contingent entity(al-mumkin al-wujūd) .

Though the notions of hudūth and corruption are different from the notion of contingency(imkān) , these two attributes are found only in contingent entities. However, this is not to say that every contingent(mumkin) is hādith, because it is possible to conceive of a contingent, which does not have temporal hudūth and is above temporal changes. For instance, the Divine favor and compassion­­­­­­­­­­ - as instanced by, “ever-favoring to the creation,”[101] - is eternal and beyond temporal limitations; the incorporeal human soul, that even if hādith, will remain in Paradise or Hell forever; and the Divine Face which according to the verse, “But will remain forever the Face of thy Lord, the Glorious and Gracious,”[102] has eternal Glory and Grace.

Making a note of this point makes it easy to differentiate between the demonstration of contingency and necessity(burān al-imkān wa al-wujūb) and the demonstration of hudūth(burhān al-hudūth) . The demonstration of contingency and necessity centers on the middle term of contingency(imkān) , outlined by the generation and corruption of finite beings; and the demonstration of hudūth proceeds from the hudūth of various things.

Contingency is also provable without taking hudūth and corruption into consideration. When the essence of a particular(juz’ī) entity, such as a tree or a human being, is conceived, and none of the two contradictory sides of existence and nonexistence is integral to it, it can be inferred that although in the external world the particular thing is either existent or nonexistent, however, by virtue of its essence, it is without and equidistant to both sides of contradiction. This characteristic - the vacancy of the essence from existence and nonexistence, which is followed by its equidistance to existence and nonexistence - is the source of derivation of the quality of contingency(imkān) .

Further contemplation in this regard would illustrate that any external entity the essence(dhāt) and essential parts(dhātiyyāt) of which are conceivable by the mind and can assume mental existence(al-wujūd al-dhehnī) is contingent, because if the essence or essential parts of a certain thing can exist by mental existence, given the impossibility of the transfer of external existence(al-wujūd al-khārijī) to the mind, existence and external reality are not its essence, and are rather outside the boundaries of its essence.

The essence of something to which external reality and existence are necessary and inseparable from cannot transfer to the mind, because real existence projects effects, and mental existence does not produce effects; and a single object, while being the source of many effects, cannot be devoid of producing any effects. Therefore, the mind cannot apprehend the essence and reality of something, which does not come into it; the only thing it can do after its intuitive discernment, is to derive a notion from it and through that notion, which may be at an extreme state of self-evidence, reflect the external reality, which is in extreme occultation. An example is the reality of existence, the essence of which is in extreme disguise from the mind, but the notion of which is self-evident and primary. The Divine sage al-Sabzawārī, with regard to the reality of existence, says,

Its notion is among things most self-evident

While its essence is in extreme concealment[103]

Even if not hādith, and rather eternal and everlasting, something whose quiddity(māhiyya) can transfer to the mind, and the mind can fathom the profundities of its essence, given that it can shift from the external mode of existence(al-wujūd al-khārijī) to its mental mode while maintaining its essence, has to be separable from external existence. Existence and nonexistence cannot be included in the essence of such a thing, or say, such an essence or quiddity is equidistant towards existence and nonexistence, and therefore, contingent.

Argument from Contingents to the Necessary

Something that existence and nonexistence are not parts of its essence, and has equidistance towards the two, cannot become existent or nonexistent by virtue of its essence. That is, if not for an external causal efficacy(al-‛illiyya al-fā‛iliyya) , which would necessitate either existence or nonexistence for it and characterize it with one of the two qualities, its essence can be neither existent nor nonexistent. Otherwise, it will mean that while a thing is equidistant towards existence and nonexistence, it has existence or nonexistence, and therefore, it is devoid of equidistance towards the two. The concurrence of equidistance and non-equidistance is conjunction of contradictories(ijtemā‛ al-naqīdhain) , which is impossible.

Therefore, in order to exist or not to exist, every contingent entity(mumkin) needs the causal efficacy of an external agency. The agency that necessitates its existence is its existential cause; and the agency that necessitates its nonexistence is the cause of its nonexistence. In the discussions of causation, however, it is proved that the cause of something’s nonexistence is the absence of its existential cause, and not a real and factual entity on its own.

It follows that every contingent needs a being other than itself and until that “other”(ghair) does not remove its need, it does not come into existence. Therefore, wherever there is a contingent in the external world, the other, which has removed its need and has provided it with existence, also exists.

As indicated earlier, this argument can be derived from sermon 186 of Nahj al-Balāgha. At one section of the sermon it is stated, “Everything, which is known by virtue of its essence, is crafted; and everything, which stands in something other than itself, is caused.” That is, something the essence of which can come into the mind, as explained earlier, cannot have existence as its essence; and therefore, its existence is caused by some agency other than itself.

It should be noted that the “other” upon which the contingent entity is dependent and which satisfies its need cannot be another contingent. Since a contingent entity has equidistance towards existence and nonexistence, and something that itself has equidistance towards existence and nonexistence, cannot impel another entity that has equidistance towards existence and nonexistence out of the state of equidistance. Rather, in order to depart from the state of equidistance, every equidistant entity needs a non-equidistant entity.

Just as existence and nonexistence are not the essential parts of contingents, and therefore, they have equidistance towards existence and nonexistence, likewise, creation(ījād) and annihilation(in‛edām) are not inherent in them, and they have equidistance towards the two. Therefore, the creation or annihilation of a contingent cannot be attributed to another contingent. Were this possible, it would mean that a contingent entity, which is equidistant towards creation and annihilation, is not equidistant towards them, which is an obvious conjunction of contradictories.

In order to enter the domain of existence, contingents require the causal efficacy of an external agency, or say, an “other,” which causes their existence; and the other, which causes their existence, cannot be a contingent phenomenon.

With regard to the negation of causality of a contingent with respect to another contingent, ‛Abd al-Razzāq al-Lāhijī, the author of Shawāriq al-Ilhām, narrates these two principles from Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī: “A thing is not existent until it exists. And until it is existent, it cannot create.” That is, since the contingent is devoid of existence, it is not existent. And since it is not existent, it cannot bestow existence either.

A contingent can only create when it depends on an external “other,” which cannot be a contingent. Therefore, existence and creation of a contingent is only conceivable when it is established by and dependent upon “another”, which does not have an equal relation towards existence and nonexistence, and in other words, for which existence is necessary.

The articulation of the demonstration(burhān) in this fashion, without any reliance on impossibility of circular or regressive causality, first, proves the Necessary, and then proves the finitude of the series of contingent entities that are mediates(wasā’it) in the act of creation. And if, as is the case, in some of its versions, the argument proceeds from invaldiation of circularity(daur) and regress(tasalsul) , it is not because these two are critical in the cogency of the demonstration. Rather, it is meant to facilitate the comprehension and indoctrination of the demonstration. Therefore, even if circularity(daur) and regress(tasalsul) were not considered void, the demonstration of contingency and necessity would still maintain its tenability.

The need of contingents for the “other” is in the form of a universal affirmative proposition(al-qadhiyya al-mūjiba al-kulliyya) . It does not pertain to the totality of the world, so the fact that totality exists only in the mind could undermine its cogency. Rather, it pertains to every entity that has equidistance towards existence and nonexistence. Given the universality of this need, the existence of these entities, which by virtue of their essences are equidistant to existence and nonexistence, cannot be explained on the score of a specific contingent, since every contingent that may be used in the answer is already included in the universal affirmative proposition. If the existence of a particular contingent entity were to be explained, it would be imaginable to suggest another contingent thing as the reason of its existence. Nevertheless, since the question pertains to the entirety of contingent entities, it is only answerable with an entity that is not included in the aggregate, that is, an entity to which the quality of contingency does not apply and existence for which is necessary.

Instrumentality of the Mediates and the Efficacy of the Necessary

Quidditative contingency(al-imkān al-māhuwī) , which is the middle term of the demonstration of contingency and necessity, is a necessary and inseparable property of the quiddity(māhiyya) . That is, equidistance towards existence and nonexistence is an essential property(al-‛aradh al-dhātī) of quiddity, so much so that even when due to an external causal efficacy it finds existence and is rearranged from the position of equidistance, its essence remains devoid of existence and nonexistence and continues to be characterized by contingency. This is because even after creation(ījād) , existence does not become the essence(dhāt) or an essential part(juz’ al-dhāt) of the quiddity; and therefore, its need for external causal efficacy continues. Al-Shabistarī, in Gulshan Raz says in this regard:

God, the Exalted, is Witness to the truth of my words

Disgrace leaves not the contingent in the two worlds[104]

If a quiddity which comes into existence through the creation of an external agency should be an instrument(āla) for the existence of another quiddity, this mediation(wasāta) in creation cannot pertain to its contingent essence. It is brought by that agency, which is needless and independent in His existence and creation. From this vantage point, it is clear that the instrumentality(sababiyya) and mediation(wasāta) of contingents in relation to one another is not such that would place God, the Free-of-Need Origin, at the top of the causal series and the contingent intermediates one after the other in a successive manner. Thus, no contingent is a mediate in the transfer of grace(faidh) by virtue of its essence; and given that they are sustained by the Necessary(al-Wājib) and recipient of His grace, the Origin is present within the context of their instrumentality and mediation.

The mediation of instruments in the transfer of Divine grace is not like the mediation of pipes in transfer of water. A tap takes water from pipelines that are instruments between the tap and the reservoir. No contingent in the series of contingents possesses the existence that has to be transferred to the next contingent; rather, the Divine grace is present within the series and nearer to each one of its units than any other unit. “Nowhere taketh place any secret counsel between three [persons] but He is the fourth of them, nor between five, but He is the sixth, nor [between] less than that, nor [between] more but He is with them wherever they may be.”[105]

If efficacy and creation of the Being, which is free of need and dependence, that is, the Necessary Existent(al-Wājib al-wujūd) , were limited to the creation of the first contingent entity - which would, in turn, create the second contingent, which would, in turn, create the third, and so on - and the series of contingents existed in a successive fashion without any temporal distance between its units, it would suggest that the Necessary grants existence and creation to the essence of the contingent. It would further follow that the contingent, by receiving the grace(faidh) , loses its state of equidistance and essential contingency. Moreover, it would imply that the Free-of-Need Origin is at the top of the series and is one of its many units; and His grace is the source of the grace, which descends from the first contingent to the second and then to other creatures. This would translate to the view that His essence and grace are limited to the top of the successive series. Nonetheless, both corollaries are corrupt, since quidditative contingency(al-imkān al-māhuwī) , as explained earlier, contrary to potentiality(al-iste‛dād) , is an attribute that does not separate from the contingent. Additionally, infinitude of the Necessary and boundlessness of His grace, which are proved in the discussions of His attributes, do not reconcile with Him being confined to the first member of the putative series.

To call the instrumentality(sababiyya) and mediation(wasāta) of instruments(asbāb) and mediates(wasā’it) between the first efficient cause and its effect causality is for the sake of facilitating teaching and learning. In fact, these mediates resemble mirrors that merely exhibit the emanation of Divine grace and His exclusive rule, and by virtue of their essences, none of them have any role in creation; and thus, no mediate is a true efficient cause. In other words, ascription of causal efficacy to mediates - similar to ascription of existence to contingents - is in view of the association of Divine grace with them, and more accurately, in view of the manifestation of Divine grace in them. Therefore, such ascription is figurative.

Hudūth of the Mediates and Eternity of the Divine Grace

The demonstration of contingency and necessity(burān al-imkān wa al-wujūb) illustrates that the need and dependence of an effect on its cause owes to its contingency(imkān) . And since contingency is inseparable from the contingent quiddity, as long as a contingent is graced with existence, its intense dependence and need to its existential cause continues. For this reason, the efficient cause has presence and authority over all conditions of its effect, and the effect’s need is not limited to a specific condition, such as the moment of its hudūth.

The Sustentative Authority(al-ihāta al-qayūmiyya) of the efficient cause over its effect negates the existence of a horizontal relationship between the two. Causal efficacy is not perceivable between entities that come into being one after another in the course of time in a successive series, because during the entire period of its existence, the effect is needful to its existential cause. However, the temporally successive entities follow one another, and the existence of the following entity coincides with the nonexistence of the preceding entity. How can something that exists now be the effect of an efficient cause that does not exist any more?

The causality, which the non-philosophic minds assign to temporally successive series, is not, in fact, something to which the effect owes its existence. In philosophical parlance, things that come into existence and events that happen in a temporal sequence - such as parents who are conditions of the inception of their and their children’s children - are considered conditions and supplementary causes(al-‛ilal al-mu‛idda) ; and the efficient cause of every entity is the Necessary Being Who is with the effect all its life long. “And He is with you wherever you be.”[106]

It can be inferred from this discussion that the supplementary causality(al-‘illiyya al-e‛dādiyya) of things, which are horizontal to contingents, unlike the causality of something that may be vertical to them, is not by virtue of their essence. Rather, it pertains to that very infinite and expansive Divine grace and “One Command”[107] , which has manifested in the image of mediates and conditions. The Majestic Qur’ān, in view of this reality, denies the causality and mediation of conditions and instruments such as parents and farmers in the generation of children and crops, and reserves this role for the Almighty Allah: “Have ye seen what ye emit [the life germ]? Is it ye that create or are We the Creators? … Have ye seen what ye sow? What! Is it ye that grow it or are We the Growers?”[108]

After proving the Necessary through the demonstration of contingency and necessity(burān al-imkān wa al-wujūb) , the finitude of the vertical succession of instruments and conditions can be established. Al-Fārābī has argued for the finitude of vertical causes on the same grounds.[109] However, the finitude of conditions and supplementary causes that are horizontal to each other cannot be justified on the same account. For this reason, the infinite succession of dependent entities along the course of eons is compatible with the demonstration of contingency and necessity. Because if there is an infinite succession of dependent entities, not only it cannot suggest finitude for the Divine grace, rather it will indicate the boundlessness and eternity of God’s grace. “And every favor of Yours is eternal.”[110]

Such eternity, like the everlasting life of the Paradise-dwellers, does not pertain to the essence of contingents. It owes to the Divine grace and benevolence and its attribution to the world and creatures is figurative(majāzī) . Because if eternity is ascribed to the essence of the contingent entities, contingency - which is an essential property(al-‛aradh al-dhātī) of quiddity - gives place to necessity. This follows that an essential property(al-‛aradh al-dhātī) , that is, contingency, is not an essential property, which is a conjunction of contradictories.

This argument would have indicated the impossibility of the eternity of the world, if the Divine grace were solely availed to a single contingent entity. However, in the infinite series of supplementary causes(al-‛ilal al-mu‛idda) , such an entity does not exist, as in the successive series, every entity is subject to change and mutability and every unit generates and corrupts. As far as the putative series or whole is concerned, it is a mental concept which, as a result of perception of multiplicities, is brought about in the mind and does not have any external reality over and above the units of the series. Therefore, in the course of temporally successive hādiths, an entity the eternity of which alone may reflect the infinite grace does not exist. For this reason, the Divine grace and favor is eternal, but their recipients, by virtue of their essences, are in absolute nihility and nonexistenc; and it is by Divine grace that the natural world, which is the world of change and flux, generates and corrupts at every moment. With regard to this, says al-Sabzawārī his Al-Mandhūma,

His Benevolence is eternal and perpetual

While the recipient is ever-perishing and nihil[111]

Criticisms and Evaluations

The demonstration of contingency and necessity revolves around the essential contingency of quiddities. The main characteristic of this demonstration is the fact that it does not depend on a specific phenomenon such as motion, design, hudūth, and so forth. Its focal point is the relation of essence of entities with existence and being real.

This demonstration has entered western philosophical thought in the Middle Ages through the works of Ibn Rushd(Averroës) and the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas. Later in the modern western philosophy, it became subject to scrutiny and criticism. In addition to its western critiques, the demonstration of contingency and necessity has also been evaluated by Islamic philosophers.

The criticisms of the demonstration of contingency and necessity in Islamic philosophy apply to some of its versions, not to the exposition we presented. In some versions of the demonstration, the impossibility of circular and regressive causation has not been relied upon and the series of contingent entities has been considered as a totality. Such versions have been subject to criticism that the series is a mental concept, and in the external world, it does not have a reality over and above its units; in other words, in the external world, an entity such as the series or aggregate, the contingency of which would lead to its existential cause, does not exist.

Some versions of the demonstration rely upon the impossibility of circular and regressive causation. This has encouraged the proponents of the possibility of causal regress(al-tasalsul al-‛illī) to criticize the demonstration. However, first, the impossibility of regressive causation is not deniable, because although not every causal series is impossible, a series that is characterized by the three qualities of infinity, causal relationship between its members, and coexistence of its members at the same time, is impossible for the reasons given at its appropriate place. Second, the demonstration’s cogency does not really depend on the impossibility of circular or regressive causation, and its usage has a mere educational purpose.

As on the one hand criticisms of the demonstration of contingency and necessity in contemporary western philosophy indicate their lack of understanding of the argument, on the other, it stands for the defective and faulty translations of intimations that are grounds of common consensus amongst the luminaries of Divine wisdom.

In some translations, other arguments, such as the demonstrations(barāhīn) of motion and hudūth have been mentioned under the title of demonstration of contingency and necessity; and then criticisms, which may apply to them, have been presumed to be valid with respect to the demonstration of contingency and necessity. At other instances, the demonstration of contingency and necessity has been differentiated from another argument, which has been named ‘the argument of causality’. While causation(‛illiyya) is a common principle that is used in every argument, including the demonstration of contingency and necessity, and it does not constitute an independent argument horizontal to the demonstration of contingency and necessity and other arguments.

In addition to the fact that the tenability of most theistic arguments, such as the demonstrations of hudūth, motion, design, and so forth, presupposes the validity of the principle of causation, should the very principle of causation be disputed, the necessary relationship between an argument’s premises and the conclusion thereof will be subject to doubt. This would jar the path of reason and rationality on the one hand, and make critique irrelevant as well. This is because every argument is based on the causal rapport between its premises and the conclusion thereof, and every criticism must have a demonstrative form. If the principle of causation is not accepted, there will be no way, as explained fully before, to prove or negate anything.

In order to prevent confusion between the demonstrations of Divine Essence and those of His attributes and disallow the expectations of proving Divine attributes from the arguments of His essence, it is important to differentiate between the notion of Divine Essence and notions, which reflect His attributes. Moreover, in order to critique or defend an argument in its own context and ensure that different arguments are not confused with one another, the content of every argument’s premises must be preserved.

The middle terms of the demonstrations of hudūth, motion, and contingency and necessity are different from one another; and, as it will come, their conclusions are not identical either. The tenability of the demonstrations of hudūth and motion is indebted to the demonstration of contingency and necessity, so much so that without this adduction they fail to prove the Necessary.

Evaluation of Hume’s Criticism

The version of the demonstration of contingency and necessity, which has come in this work, illustrates the corruption and invalidity of the criticism advanced by some a western theologian and philosophizer. The criticism asserts that if the world’s parts are equidistant towards existence and nonexistence, and therefore are characterized by contingency and need to an external causality, the same does not necessarily have to be true about their ensemble, since there is no evidence to suggest that the parts and the ensemble are governed by the same rules. For instance, it cannot be generalized from the fact that every human being has a mother that the entire human race has also a mother.

The critic has presumed that the argument is based on quidditative contingency of the totality of world’s parts, whereas the demonstration(burhān) proceeds from the premise that without the efficacy of an external agency, a contingent entity cannot come into existence. This proposition speaks of all contingent beings, not their whole, because the whole does not even exist. And since it does not exist, it is neither necessary nor contingent, and therefore, it does not have a need of another. This lack of need is a negative proposition the subject of which does not exist, what we call a negative proposition by the nonexistence of its subject(al-sāliba bi intifā‛ al-maudhū‛) . Obviously, although the ensemble of the contingent entities, which is a mental concept, does not exist in the external world, it does have a mental existence under the auspices of the existence of knowledge. In this shadowy existence(al-wujūd al-dhillī) , the title of aggregate is predicated to it by predication as essence(al-haml al-awwalī al-dhātī) , not by predication as extension(al-haml al-shā’e‛ al-sinā‛ī) . Therefore, on its own right, being contingent entity, it is a member of the series of contingent entities and an extension for the mentioned proposition. As explained during the exposition of the demonstration(burhān) , every contingent entity the quiddity of which is entertained, since the said proposition is applicable to it, it is characterized by need and dependence and can be realized only through the causal efficacy of a reality, which is not characterized by this quality and is, by virtue of its essence, needless and independent.

Even if the aggregate of contingents were not a mere mental existence and were real and external, the said proposition will still be applicable to it. This further strengthens the demonstration(burhān) , since in this case, the aggregate of the world is a real and a non-reified quiddity, the existence or nonexistence of which is conceivable without any contradiction, and therefore, is equidistant towards existence and nonexistence. It follows that the preponderance of either existence or nonexistence over the other requires a preponderant that will justify the preponderance.

This illustrates that the criticism, which is related from Hume, is not applicable to the demonstration of contingency and necessity. Hume contends that we have never experimented the totality of the world so the claim of its need to an external causal efficacy could be justifiable. This criticism can be considered valid only if the argument were based on the contingency of the aggregate of the contingent entities; whereas first, the aggregate lacks external existence; and second, the aggregate of the contingent entities has not been used in this demonstration(burhān) as a premise; and third, even if the aggregate existed and were used in the argument, contingency and need would be its essential properties, and apprehension of these properties does not require experiment.

The Denial of Philosophic Meaning of Necessity and its Answer

Another criticism directed at the demonstration of contingency and necessity asserts that necessity is a logical category, and an existential proposition cannot be narrated with logical necessity. It claims that if existence was necessary for God, the proposition “God is nonexistent” would be self-contradictory, and “God exists” will be logically necessary and true, whereas we can doubt God’s existence.

In other words, necessity is a logical concept that describes the modality of tautological propositions, and it cannot be used to reflect external existence of things. There is nothing, Hume argues, the existence of which is demonstrable and whatever we conceive of as existent, we can conceive of as nonexistent. For instance, we can conceive, without any contradiction, of God’s nonexistence even if this may imply the nonexistence of the world. Whereas, if existence had logical necessity for God, the conception of His nonexistence would certainly entail contradiction.

In order to answer this criticism, it has to be established that necessity has a common meaning in logic and philosophy. Necessity is used in philosophy with the same meaning that describes modality of propositions in logic. Furthermore, necessity is an axiomatic concept, which philosophy first proves its existence, and then logic presupposes its truth as a lemma borrowed from philosophical discussions, and explains its various types.

It was elucidated earlier that necessity, possibility, and impossibility are axiomatic concepts and do not have real definitions. However, because philosophy is the study of existence, the division of existent things into necessary, contingent, and impossible is a philosophical inquiry. Appraisal of things in relation to existence in the form of two exclusive disjunctive propositions(al-munfasila al-haqīqiyya) results in the division of things into necessary, contingent, and impossible; and the same appraisal in the form of one exclusive disjunctive proposition results in the dichotomy of things into necessary and contingent entities.

These entire divisions center on the principle of non-contradiction; that is, the impossibility of conjunction and negation of contradictories(istehāla ijtimā‛ wa irtefā‛ al-naqīdhain) . Since either existence is necessary for a thing, or it is not; if it is not, then either nonexistence is necessary for it or it is not. On the other hand, either existence is necessary for an existent thing, or it is not. However, if existence is not necessary for it, nonexistence cannot be necessary for it, as it exists. Therefore, if an existent entity is not necessary, since it cannot have necessity of nonexistence, it is a contingent entity.

After philosophy depicts these divisions in a demonstrative format and narrates the external existence of the last two kinds, logic, in the province of its inquiry - which is the mental concepts - identifies their extensions(masādīq) and puts forth thirteen kinds of necessary propositions.

Some mutakellimūn, such as al-Qādhī Adhud al-Ijī in his Al-Mawāqif, have presumed that there is a difference between philosophical and logical necessity.[112] Al-Ijī holds that if necessity had an identical meaning in philosophy as well as in logic, then in instances where essential parts(dhātiyyāt) or essential properties(lawāzaim al-dhat or al-‛awāridh al-dhātiyya) of a thing are predicated to it, it would mean that the thing is a necessary being. For example, the proposition “Four is necessarily even” would indicate that four has necessity of existence.

Sadr al-Din al-Shirāzī, in the discussions of modality of the noble book of Al-Asfār, has rejected al-Iji’s presumption as false and has made it clear that necessity has one meaning; however, in every case it corresponds to its predicate and subject.[113] If it is stated that, for instance, four is necessarily even, it does not imply that four is necessarily existent. Rather it means that four is necessarily even. Therefore, what has been implied is tenable, and what is untenable has not been implied.

Logic’s(al-mantiq) dependence on philosophy in the subject of necessity resembles its dependence on philosophy in the subject of predication(haml) . In the discussions of unity(wahda) and multiplicity(kathra) , existence is divided into one and multiple. Then unity and multiplicity are divided into various kinds. Among the types of unity(wahda) , there is individual unity(al-wahda al-shakhsiyya) , specie unity(al-wahda al-nau‛iyya) , genus unity(al-wahda alj-jinsiyya) , sheer unity(al-wahda al-mahdha) , and the unity that encompasses multiplicity. This last kind of unity is called “it-is-itness”(hū-hūwiyya) . “It-is-itness” is predication, which is either as essence(al-haml al-awwalī) or as extension(al-haml al-shā’yẻ) . Logic takes predication as granted and formulates its discussions on its basis; nonetheless, the affirmation of predication itself is not a logical inquiry.

Not only in many of its discussions, but also in the subject of its study, that is, acquired knowledge or concepts and judgments, logic is indebted to philosophy, because the existence of knowledge as well as its division into acquired and intuitive the division of acquired knowledge into concepts and judgments are philosophical inquiries. The fact that some of these phenomena are primary or self-evident does not eclipse their philosophical identity, since the criterion for including a proposition in a discipline is the analysis of its subject; if its subject is existence, and the predicate is assigned to it qua existence, then the proposition pertains to philosophy.

In short, necessity is a self-evident concept, and the study of its reality is a philosophic inquiry. Logic uses this secondary philosophical intelligible(al-ma‛qūl al-thānī al-falsafī) in the context of predications and copulas of propositions that are secondary logical intelligibles(al-ma‛qūl al-thānī al-mantiqī) .

Although necessity has a single meaning, as indicated earlier, it has different rules in different instances. The said criticism originates from the assumption that first, necessity has a mere logical meaning and does not have a philosophical usage that would describe external things and realities, and second, logical necessity is restricted to analytical propositions where the predicate is included in the essence of the subject. The critic has presumed that necessity exists only when a subject is predicated to itself or to its essential parts, such as “Human is human” or “Human is an animal.”

According to this presumption, necessity is inevitably restricted to mental concepts and it cannot reflect the external reality of things. The reply to this presumption is that necessity is not exclusive to analytical and tautological propositions and it can be literally used in the predication of essential properties(al-a‛rādh al-dhātiyya) of a thing, a category the scope of which is wider than essential parts.

The essential parts(al-dhātiyyāt) of an essence are things that are included in its definition(hadd) , and their predication is considered tautology or identity-claim. On the other hand, essential properties of things­ - for instance, contingency(imkān) with respect to finite entities - are concepts that are not included in their definitions.

Contingency is a concept, which is not an essential part of finite entities. It is abstracted and predicated to them only after they are assessed with existence and nonexistence. In the light of this, it becomes clear that need and dependence on the external causal efficacy are not concepts that are the essence or essential parts of contingents, and therefore, they are their essential properties.

The demonstration of contingency and necessity does not depend on the rational analysis of conceived notions and quiddities; rather, it is based on the rational analysis of realities that exist in the external world. It proceeds from the assessment of the essences of existent things with relation to existence and nonexistence. In this demonstration, even the notion of existence qua notion of existence is not used, and rather, the notion of existence qua its external reality is examined.

The arguments that are dedicated to the analysis of Divine attributes elucidate that the Necessary does not have a quiddity in addition to His reality and existence; in other words, His quiddity is His external factuality(al-Wājib mahiyyatuhu inniyyatuh) . Similarly, His necessity does not have an extension separate from His reality and is nothing but the severity and extremity of His existence. Therefore, the usage of necessity in relation to God does not reflect the modality of predication; it reflects severity, emphasis, and extremity of a phenomenon that has no reality but factuality.

Since the critic considers necessity as a mere logical concept, the usage of which is exclusive to tautological propositions, he presumes that should God have necessity of existence, then external existence must be an essential part of His concept, and its negation, like any other proposition that takes away the essence or essential part of a subject, would be self-contradictory.

External existence is not included in the notion of the Necessary. The necessity, which is involved in the notion of the Necessary, is not a necessity, which describes the modality of propositions; it is a necessity, which is sheer external existence and factuality.[114] The notion of the necessary being, which reflects this sort of necessity, on its own right, is devoid of such necessity, since although, by predication as essence it is the Necessary; by predication as extension, it is a mental phenomenon, which exists in the sphere of human knowledge, and is a contingent and perishable.

The demonstration of contingency and necessity does not proceed from the premise that existence is an essential part of the notion of the Necessary Being. Since if it were the case, comprehension of this notion would be simultaneous to discernment of God’s existence and negation of His existence would be self-contradictory, and there would not be any need to prove His existence.

Evaluation of the Epistemological Criticism

Another criticism raised against the demonstration of contingency and necessity stems from certain epistemological perspectives. It states that the demonstration would be tenable if it were the case that the external reality was rationally discernable, and additionally, rational discernments were representative of external reality. Nonetheless, if reality is a brute phenomenon with a complete irrational identity, the argument is not conclusive.

For instance, the demonstration relies on an exclusive disjunctive proposition, which divides existent things into necessary and contingent things. This disjunctive proposition is contingent upon the principle of non-contradiction, which relates the impossibility of conjunction of contradictories. However, the conjunction of contradictories is a rational judgment about the external world; should the external world have a brute and irrational identity, the applicability of this judgment to the external world, and consequently, the validity of the conclusion of the demonstration will be subject to doubt.

The answer to this criticism becomes clear by what was elucidated with regard to epistemic worth of knowledge. The critic in this criticism has made the entirety of human knowledge subject to criticism. This distrust, which proclaims skepticism(shakkākiyya) and devaluates knowledge, entails nothing but sophism and negation of reality.

Although this and other similar skeptical and sophist perspectives dominate the contemporary western thought, it cannot so much as justify or explain itself. Like the basic reality, knowledge is a primary phenomenon, such that there is no way to deny or express skepticism with regard to it. Though every kind of doubt and skepticism about knowledge is, by predication as essence, doubt and skepticism about it, by predication as extension, it is the undeniable acknowledgement of the reality of knowledge; and therefore, the basic reality of knowledge cannot be denied or doubted in any situation.


5

6

7

8

9

10

11