The Qur'anic Proofs of at-Tawhid
The former discussion about at-Tawhid concerned its limits in Islam. In this respect we talked about management and legislation with' Allah's permission. The topic now is to find out whether at-Tawhid, whose limits had been discussed before, is proved in the Qur'an, or it only accepts it and leaves the task of proving it to the people. The answer is that the Qur'an has stated some proofs which are logically administrated and based on the criterion that should be used in such instances: "...Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder..."
It is quite clear that such an argumentation is a rational one, asking us to realize that since the heaven and the earth are in good order, then there can be no gods other than one God. This is called, in the terms of logic, "the exceptional syllogism". Those who know about logic, know that syllogism is of two kinds: the exceptional and the conjunctive. In the exceptional syllogism, there appears a correlation between two things, then one of them is proved. It has special forms, as explained in the books of logic. For example, they say: "If the sun has risen, then it is daytime". Then they say: "It is daytime", from which they deduce that "the sun has risen". Or they say: "It is not day time", from which they deduce " then the sun has not risen. This is a common example often used by the logicians. Here, too, is a correlation between polytheism and the corruption of the heaven and the earth. Had there been more than one god, the heaven and the earth would have been in chaos, like if there is sun there is daytime. However, no other matter is mentioned as to what happened to the heaven and earth, and whether there are many gods.
Once again the logicians say that there is a hidden part of a syllogism. Some times the deduction is made in such a way that when a premise is mentioned, the other premise (an induction usually consists of two premises) automatically occurs to the mind and it need not particularly stated, so, it is called the "hidden premise", although it does not exist. In this instance, the exception is not stated in the speech. It should have been said: but they are not", to end the said ayah, then the deduction would be: "Therefore, there are no gods in them except Allah". But, as you see, the exception and its result are manifest, i.e. the heaven and the earth are there and in an orderly state, therefore, it goes without saying that they are not in disorder. This leads us to conclude that there is no god to rule them other than Allah.
Thus, this is perfect logical induction based on the logical method of syllogism. What is important here is bringing the correlation to light. What does it mean to say: "Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder"? What is the correlation here? What is meant by stating this correlation?
Commentators differ in explaining this correlation, which can be put on different statements. One is rather simple and naive. The other two are technical and strict. The first statement says that in order to direct and manage an establishment, a group or a society, it is necessary to have some sort of order which must be a single unified one, otherwise that establishment will fall to pieces. Sometimes the example is offered that even within the limits of a family, if two of its members try to independently rule it, the family will be ruined. Or, if a township has two mayors its affairs will be in chaos. So, such being the case in these instances, how can a universe, so large and great as ours, be controlled and managed by more than one god.
This explanation is not logically satisfactory and can be disputed. But the other two explanations are technical and based on strict philosophical principles.
The Philosophical Induction of Antagonism
This antagonistic induction had been chosen by the scholars with philosophical inclinations, because there is in the philosophical writings a proof of at-Tawhid called: The Proof of Antagonism.
Those with philosophical taste had applied this proof to the said ayah, and, in order to shed light on its strict logical form, they offered premises, each of which is considered to be a philosophical principle.
The conclusion obtained from the Antagonistic Proof is, briefly: Two causes cannot independently be effective in the creation of a single "caused". If two causes take part in that, each one can have created a part of the "caused". Thus, such a "caused" must be composed of two parts, one part created by one of the two causes, and the other part by the other.
Finally, on the basis of the said premises, it can be concluded that there cannot be two gods in the world, as it is impossible to run the world by two deities both of whom are "Necessary Beings". A Necessary Being must, from every respect, be a necessary being - a necessary being in essence and a necessary being in all aspects.
In a term, there is, according to this proof, a false consequence in the said argument about the well-known example: "If the sun has risen then it is daytime", or sometimes we say: "The sun has not risen, then it is not daytime", or "It is not daytime, then the sun has not risen". Concerning the second part, it is said that it is consequently false, i.e. the case is consisting of two parts, the first called the premise, and the second called the consequent. Thus: "If the sun has risen" is the promise, and "then it is daytime" is the consequent. If the consequent was false, the premise would be false, too, that is, if "it is not daytime", then it will be known that "the sun has not risen". In this argument the consequent - the disorder of the world - is false, it is a lie, since the world is not in disorder. The falsity of the consequent means the falsity of the premise, that is, the supposition of multiplicity of gods is false, too.
In the said noble ayah the false consequent is not the non-existence of the world, but the false consequent is the disorderliness of the world. It says: "Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have been in a state of disorder", but you see that the world is not in a state of disorder.
It does not say: "Had there been many gods, the world could not have existed." The sate of disorder befalls something existent. If it is said in respect of a non-existing thing, it will be a falsity. This is why the Qur'an says: "If the world had had many gods it would have been corrupt". It does not say: ...it would not come to existence, whereas the relevant induction of antagonism mentioned by the philosophers denotes the disorderliness of the world. Using this proof of antagonism is critisized on the grounds that what is applicable to this ayah is other than this proof established by the philosophers. The critics assert that this proof does not well conform to the appearance of the ayah. The import of the proof is: "Had there been many gods, the world would not have been created," while the import of the ayah is: "Had there been many gods, the world would have been in a state of disorder." That is, the existing world would have been in disorder.
These two cases are not quite the same the conclusion of this statement, though a serene and in itself a philosophic proof, is not completely applicable to the ayah. I myself do not approve of it in respect of this ayah.
The third statement
The third statement which can be a proof of at-Tawhid in this ayah needs a preliminary explanation - an explanation on which we depend in this instance. This universe, including the heaven, the earth and all the phenomena therein, are run by means of a single order.
In the antagonistic proof pain is taken to prove a unity throughout the whole universe, i.e. the universe itself is a single being. In this proof we support the opinion that the world has a single order. But a single order does not necessitate that the world should have a unity of existence, as there may be many existing beings, but ruled by a single order. This is quite enough for us to prove that the world is ruled by a single order, and we need not prove, in stating this, that the world is one, and even if it is not one, this proof will still be applicable. We just want to prove that the order of the world is one.
But what do we mean by one order? We mean that this world, whether we take it as one with many parts or a whole one, i.e. to take it consisting of many independent systems, each existing independently and without any organic connection among them. Even if it is so, we cannot deny the oneness of its order, because the world which we know had been constructed and created in such a way that its beings are not isolated or independent from each other. It is not that I should have in this world an existence which has no connection whatsoever with the phenomena of the past, nor that the coexisting beings have connection at all with the beings to come. We are not like the grains of rice in a bag they do exist next to one another, but none of them has any connection with its neighbour.
Try to study each part of this world individually. It does not even need a thorough scientific study. Simply looking into it would be sufficient. Take a flower in a vase, a green plant in the garden, a baby in his cradle, or anything within your reach. How does each come into existence? Can this shrub of roses grow without your watering it? Hence, its existence depends upon that water you give to it. It cannot live without water. Nor can it grow without first sowing its seed, or transplanting its seedling. Before becoming a rose-bush it was a seed. You have to sow it first in order to obtain a rose. Thus, it is connected with a former phenomenon, and is not isolated from it. It utilizes the oxygen or other gases of the air. If they had not been there, the rose could not have grown and continue its existence. Yet, at the same time, it has its effective role in changing the percentage of the gases in the air. By taking oxygen it decreases its percentage in the air, and by taking other kinds of gases, it increases the percentage of the oxygen in the air. So, it has a close connection with its neighbouring atmosphere.
Consequently, neither the air is independent of the rose-shrub, nor the rose-shrub is independent of the air. Such is the case with the animals. That chicken which has just hatched out, under your observation, could not have come into existence without its mother and the egg. Now as it is alive and runs about in the yard, has its connection with its surroundings in the form of action and reaction. It breathes the air, eats, etc., and, in its turn, it has its effect on its environment, lays eggs and brings forth the chickens for the future.
So, it has reciprocal interactions with its contemporary, past and future creatures. Even if we turn to the inanimate world and study the physical and chemical reactions of its lifeless matters, we shall realize that each phenomenon has appeared as a result of the interactions of some former phenomena, and that it acts upon its contemporaries, and becomes the material for the appearance of coming ones. This is the system that governs this world - the system of correlation, action and reaction. As a matter of fact, this does not even need any philosophical proof. Everybody can, according to his knowledge, understand the existence of such correlation, connection and unified order. Of course, the more precise and expansive our knowledge is, the deeper our understanding of this correlation. Yet, even a passing glance is enough to make one get it to a great extent.
Now somebody may say: "There are different systems in the world, each of which has organic connection with the other from inside, but none of them has a connection like this with the other." This is one of the theories of systems, with which we shall not deal for the time being. Nevertheless, however independent these systems may be, we still notice such a connection among them, and recognize that they are contained in a single larger order. That is, supposed partial systems do not mean that they are not parts of a general one, which brings all the phenomena of the world under the control of the law of being effective or being affected. This is quite clear.
Supposing a Multisystem for the World
Now look into the following question: If we suppose that each one of these systems has a god, to whom belongs the existence of a creature, and all the needs of that creature are staisfied by that god; so do you think that such a world can continue? Please note what a god means. Especially according to the concept of the Islamic at-Tawhid mentioned before, as we have said that at-Tawhid in creation is not enough, unless it is accompanied by at-Tawhid in Lordship, too.
So, Allah to whom we refer, as Muslims, is that Who has created the creatures, Who controls their existence and Who meets all their needs. Had it been otherwise, one would have had to stretch one's hand to some other one to meet one's needs. If He is the God of this creature, He will have to satisfy all his needs, since the creature's existence is in His hands. So, it is meaningless to say that a god has created a creature, whose needs have not been satisfied by his own god, but by another god. This is an irrational supposition. There can be no such god. The God is the One Who has created this creature, whose existence is in His hands. He manages his affairs, develops him and guides him towards his perfection. If each of these different systems in the world, had a god, this god must have himself created his own system, and it must be self-sufficient and in need of nothing from outside himself. The supposed god and creation must be like this. When Allah creates a creature, the complete existence of this creature will be in His hands, and all his needs will be provided for by Him or by other creatures whom He Himself has created. Now, if we suppose that the world had many gods, there must also be as many self-sufficient systems which must be in no need of any help from outside themselves.
If the human kingdom had a god, the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, and the kingdom of inanimate matters each would have a god too. It would be necessary to suppose that the human kingdom is only in need of its own god and his creatures, and it has nothing to do with the creatures of other gods, since the other gods have different independent and separate systems. That is, it should not breathe the air which is created by another god and is at his disposal, because that air belongs to another god and is in his possession, and the creation of this god should be self-sufficient, needing nothing from other than its own god and his domain. This system must keep its existing connection with its own god.
If we suppose that the universe is composed of such isolated and separate systems, do you think that will last long?
Suppose that we had been created by a god who had nothing to do with the god of the earth, heaven, air, etc., could we, who had been created like that, live without air? Could we live without water? - the things supposed to belong to another god with another system, separated and isolated from us. We must live away from that system, without being in need of that god and his creations. But the universe is not like that.
We do not see any being or system which lives alone and with no connection whatsoever with other creations, or if it did live, it wouldn't be able to last long. Even if we suppose that Allah had created man out of no material, no clay, no sperm, yet, this man had to breathe, to eat, to drink, to make use of meat, vegetables, etc., or he would die.
The Almighty Allah says: "Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder..."
If we suppose that this universe consisted of systems with a god for each to run it, its order would fall to pieces and perish, because we notice that the creatures need one another and without mutual efforts they cannot continue, they rot and perish away. So, this unity governing the order of the world can easily be recognized by everybody, though the degree of the recognition differs according to different individuals.
No one, however, fails to notice that the parts of this world are connected and coordinated, and they are not isolated from each other, and that a single order governs the whole world. This means that it is only one hand that runs and manages all things. Had there been many independent hands, each one of them wanting to "independently" run this world according to the requirement of its lordship, then the world would have been disintegrated. But, since we see this world sound and intact, running with a single order and free from any corruption and disintegration, we, consequently, realize that the one who runs this world, directs its affairs, looks after its development and connects its parts, is a single One Who had brought up a single order.
Preference of the Rational Argument
Originally this rational argument belongs to the 'Allamah Tabataba'i (may Allah bless his soul), only its statement may be a little different. It seems that it is more appropriate to the meaning of the ayah, because the false consequent for the condition of multiplicity of gods is "..., they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder...", not "they would both have not existed." This statement has another merit.
The 'Proof of antagonism' established by the philosophers only proves, at the most, that there cannot be two or more Creators. That is it can prove the oneness of the Necessary Being, and, at the most, the creation. It says that if the world had two gods, or, in the philosophic terms: had there been two causes of existence, it would not have existed, because having two complete causes for a single caused is impossible, and it is impossible to have a single caused by two complete causes.
The result, thus, will be the Oneness of the Creator. This proof, besides proving the Oneness of the Creator, also proves the Oneness of Lordship, i.e. it proves that the original creation has not been done by two gods, and it proves that the management of the world is not carried out by two gods either.
According to this statement, which is based on the management and the order of the world, it becomes clear that the world has only one Manager and Lord. That is, besides proving at-Tawhid in the Necessary Being and Creation, it also proves at-Tawhid in Lordship and worship, i.e. there is no creator, no lord and no one deserving worship, but Allah. Islam confirms this by saying: "Had there been in them both any gods..." it does not say: "Had there been in them both any creator except Allah, or any lord except Allah."
So far it has been proved that none except Allah is the Lord of this world, nor is there any creator except Him. Now, in order to bring our belief in at-Tawhid to the agreeable level, we must also prove that none except Him deserves to be worshipped. So, how shall we start? We have already explained the connection between Allah's Lordship and Divinity, and it has been made clear that the one who deserves to be worshipped is the one who owns and controls the worshipper's affairs.
The one who wants to offer his worship and servitude must believe that the one whom he worships is his Lord and Owner, so that he can manifest to Him his practical servitude by showing submission, humbleness and inability before Him. So, He must be Mighty, Possessor and Master, in order that man may be a slave and show his servitude in the form of worshipping. So, believing in His Divinity includes believing in His Lordship. If we want to rightly worship we are to believe that the worshipped is our Lord, and that no one, except the Lord, deserves worshipping. When the Divinity of the Lord is proved, i.e. when it has become obvious that man and the world have no Lord except Allah, it would consequently be proved that except him there is none to be worthy of worshipping, because if some other one is to be worshipped, he must have divine lordship, and, since none but Allah has it, it goes naturally that it is only Him Who is to be worshipped. Here the limit of the Islamic at-Tawhid: "La ilaha illallah (there is no god but Allah), is completely proved.
Another ayah Proving At-Tawhid
And your God is one God! There is no god but He, the Beneficent, the Merciful."
The claim is stated in this ayah. Some say that it even refers to a proof, but we shall not rely on this aspect. What is quite obvious in this ayah is that the claim of at-Tawhid is stated, i.e. the Qur'an says that its claim is that "Your God is one God." "La ilaha illallah" is a confirmation of it. When your worshipped one is He, then there will be no other worshipped except Him, "ar-Rahman", or "Rahim" (the Beneficent, the Merciful). Why should these two attributes be mentioned here? There are very delicate explanations in this respect, which we do not want to discuss. We may, however, say that the attribute "ar-Rahman" (the Beneficent) denotes creation and genetic Lordship. While "ar-Rahim" (the Merciful) concerns man's development and spiritual perfection, which is brought about under the shadow of the Legislative Lordship. The stated claim here is that the Ilah (Allah) and the worshipped are one, and that except Him there is no god, and it is He Who is the "Rahman", the Bestower of existence, and it is He Who is the "Rahim", the Merciful. He takes those who tread upon the road of servitude to Him, to a becoming perfection and a worthy happiness. In the next ayah we read:
"Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth, the alternation of night and day, and the ships that sail on the sea for that which benefits mankind, and the water that Allah sends down from the sky to revive with it the earth after its death, and spread in it all (sorts of) animals; and the changing of the winds and the clouds made to serve between the sky and the earth; there are signs for a people who reason".
After making the claim, it says: if you think of those phenomena, you will recognize signs that prove the claim. By deeply contemplating on the ayah, it becomes more obvious when you descern the whole universe, its sky, its earth, its moon, its sun, and the revolving of the earth resulting in the appearance of the day and the night, which is related to the sun.
Let the earth revolve around itself a thousand million times, but there will be no day and night without there being a sun. These phenomena, whether celestial or terrestrial, are connected to each other.
These movements cause the sun to shine on the seas, where from the clouds ascend to the sky, then, under the effect of the conditions of the weather, they turn once again into rain drops pouring down on the earth, causing plants to grow out of it, and the animals to survive. All these phenomena are related to one another. Neither the sky is separate from the earth, nor the earth from the sky. Other terrestrial phenomena are also connected to each other. By studying these phenomena in general you will find that they are governed by a single, coordinated and harmonious order. They are joined together, and whatever you think of, you will see in it the unity, harmony and order. Consequently, such a universe cannot have many gods, or many creators or many directors, because all its phenomena are connected to one another in creation. The Creator of man is the same One Who has created the earth, the parents and the sperm to create man.
It is not possible to say that man's earth is created by another god, and his parents by a second one and their new born baby by a third. Nor can it be said that the sun is created by someone, while the rain is sent down from the sky by another. What does sending down the water mean? Is it anything other than the sun's sending of its heat onto the oceans, turning their waters into vapour, which rises to the sky, and then, under low temperature and certain conditions, it turns once again into water?
Does rain mean anything other than this? Doesn't it happen by the effect of the sun and some other factors? So, the one who has created the sun and the said factors is the same who brings down the rain from the sky. It is a single order, and it cannot be said that the god of the sun is different from that of the rain. The one who moves the wind, also moves your ships on the sea.
Anyhow, it is the laws of nature that are being utilized to make all that man invents and fabricates. Allah has enjoined and regulated these things, and He is the One Who has created the matter, the human beings, and the metals of which ships and planes are made. He created the brain to enable man to turn the metals into those shapes. It is He Who created the plane as well as the whole world, directly or indirectly. One cannot say that the creator of the ship and the plane is someone other than the One Who created man and the elements of nature, as without the human brain and the elements of nature the plane and the ship cannot be created.
As a result, a deep contemplation on the world's phenomena will guide you to realize that the universe has a single God, Allah.
0%
Author: Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
