The proof of Allah SWT's Existence

Introduction

The Islamic Ummah has suffered a catastrophic decline which has led to its continuous humiliation and mankind's degradation. One of the major reasons for this severe downfall was the Muslim's lack of understanding of the Islamic belief and how to arrive at it correctly. While many had adopted the Islamic belief (Aqeedah) on a hereditary basis, some had also adopted it from a purely spiritual and emotional angle i.e. 'Islam gave them a good sense of morals and guidelines'. Such misconceptions and misunderstandings weakened the Muslim's resolve and forced Islam to appear on a par with other 'religious' beliefs which were based on the pursuance of tradition and the blindness of 'faith'. This downward spiral of intellectual backwardness continued within the Islamic Ummah as they hopelessly tried to prove Islam by erroneous methods such as the Quran's compatibility with scientific discoveries, pseudo intellectual interfaith debates and 'hijras' to tomatoes, pears and forests which supposedly bared Allah SWT's name. As a consequence of wallowing in this mire of diminished self-confidence, Muslims and non-Muslims alike failed to perceive the true nature of Islam and its intellectual basis. Moreover alien terms such as 'faith' came to be introduced to Islam and used readily, despite Islam's rejection of such a concept and its demand for firm Iman (decisive belief). The concept of faith i.e. a trust or blind willingness to accept became commonly and deliberately misinterpreted as Iman. This was one of many attempts to deracinate the Islamic Aqeedah from the hearts and souls of the Muslims and to banish it to the dark annals of history.

The past generations of Muslims from the time of the Prophet SAW and his companions RA, had embraced Islam comprehensively as a decisive belief which was the irrefutable intellectual leadership they carried to the rest of mankind. In this article  we shall establish again that decisive way to belief, which leads to the intellectual conviction and acceptance of 'There is no deity but Allah and Muhammed SAW is His Messenger.'

Fundamental Questions
Every human inevitably has to face and answer the following questions in relation to his existence - 'Why am I here?', 'Who put me here?' and 'How did I get here?' Without answering these questions man will wander through life aimlessly without any reference point or criteria for his actions and decisions. These questions will continue to haunt him unless they are comprehensively and conclusively answered.

In every aspect of life he will be reminded of these questions whether by the acknowledgement of his own limitations, the limitations of others, the observance of the Universe or the recognition of life itself being temporary. Due to these constant reminders surrounding man, these questions will continue to agitate him, they are inescapable and fundamental. This is because once these questions are answered they will form the basic thought i.e. all thoughts will be peripheral to this thought, emanate from it and built upon it.

Man will answer these questions in different manners according to his own level of perception and thought but the man who is determined for the truth will exhaust every possible angle and answer these questions in an enlightened manner. The comprehensive resolution of the questions 'Why am I here?', 'Who put me here?' and 'How did I get here?' are what constitute the Aqeedah.

Some may choose to ignore these questions or answer them in a fickle manner without thorough investigation but the inescapable need to answer them is ever present. Hence for man to revive it is incumbent upon him to establish the fundamental thought of Why? Who? and How? so that it forms the criteria and basis for all his actions and thoughts in a synergetic manner.

The Framework

To answer the fundamental questions and to establish whether a Creator exists or not, one must define the framework for the discussion and thoughts. Without this framework the discussion can lead to a futile, philosophical debate which concludes nothing. For example if we were to have the aim of building a house, it is essential that we establish the perimeter / framework of where the house will be built in order to lay the bricks in the appropriate place. If that framework is absent, the bricks will be placed in a random and chaotic manner and we will fail to produce the objective of the exercise i.e. the formation of a house. Hence when discussing and contemplating the fundamental questions it is essential to adhere to the sensed reality and that which is definitely proven.

By contemplating on issues which are beyond the senses and have no evidence is not only non-productive but also pointless in the sincere pursuit for the truth. For example discussing an issue such as 'how do I know if I am going to die unless I actually die?' is the kind of ingratiating nonsense which has occupied the minds of philosophers and their like in an attempt to appear intellectual when in actuality they are failing to recognise something understood easily by a small child. The sensed reality proves to us that every human being that has lived has also died. To say that 'I don't know that I'm going to die unless I die' is flawed because the evidence from the rational reality proves that every man does and will die. For the claimant to say there is no evidence for his death until it occurs is wrong. Rather the angle should be there is no evidence of any man ever being eternal so the onus is on him to prove such a thing i.e. by cutting his own head off or ripping out his heart and then continuing the conversation. Furthermore the framework should also avoid basing its thoughts upon 'scientific facts & theories' which in reality are based upon conjecture and are always susceptible to change. Thus it is vital to pursue the quest for the truth using the guidelines of irrefutable facts based upon the reality and not whims, guesses or logic based upon conjecture. If this framework is followed in a lucid and sincere manner, then man will eventually answer correctly the fundamental questions of, 'Why am I here?', 'Who put me here?' and 'How did I get here?'

Limited Things

When observing any object/thing within the Universe one can conclude certain facts. Irregardless of whether the object/thing is familiar to the observer or not, these certain facts are still conclusive by the direct sensation and rational thought.

These conclusive facts are that the object/thing occupies a certain amount of space/volume/dimension and a certain amount of mass. This is evidently observed in every object/thing within the Universe, even if it is a newly discovered substance or element.

By using the rational thought process one is able to sense that the certain amount of mass and space occupied by an object/thing deems it to be limited. Due to the mass and space being only a certain amount, it is also therefore limited to that amount. For example if we were to observe a rock occupying 5cm3 and weighing 5g, this rock would be occupying a certain amount of mass and space i.e. 5 cm3 and 5g. It is thus conclusive that the rock is limited because it is only 5 cm3 and 5g. The fact that it has the capacity to be more means that it is limited by its current dimensions.

This principle is applicable to every object/thing within the Universe directly sensed by the human being. This would even include things such as energy and air which are also limited by the fact that they can be measured at any given time. Hence everything which is directly sensed by man within the Universe is irrefutably limited.

Dependency

Once something can be concluded to be limited it must then be understood whether that thing is dependent or independent. This thought process must take place if one is to come to a decisive conclusion about the existence of a Creator.

Looking at the Capitalist Ideology one can observe how it places great emphasis on the individual and the individual's self gratification. From such morose concepts, the individual in the Capitalist society inevitably places great importance on the 'self' and personal fulfilment, even if it is at the expense of the suffering of others. Accordingly the term 'independence' is used in an ostentatious manner by the Capitalists such as 'I am an independent woman', 'I want my independence from my parents' and 'I want to be independent from society'. Enwrapped in the bewildering cobweb that is the ego, they fail to truly contemplate the term 'independent' and the fact that no human being is truly independent. All humans are dependent whether with each other in terms of trade etc or on their environment in terms of sustenance etc. So for any human being to claim that he is truly independent is erroneous and against the reality. Furthermore should a thing be termed independent it would have to require and rely upon nothing for its existence and hence also not be created.

By studying the reality, it is evident that the limited object/thing cannot be independent as the things which limit it are also the things it relies on. For example the apple is limited by its mass. The apple is also dependent upon this mass, because should its mass be removed the apple would consequently cease to exist. Even the interdependence of celestial bodies within the Universe does not deem them independent as they are still reliant on each other. Furthermore by terming something independent would result in that thing being unable to be influenced by external factors. This does not conform to the reality of a limited celestial body which is undoubtedly influenced by the external factors of mass and volume. Therefore if something is limited it must be dependent upon something else and as a result it is not independent.

Beginning and End

If something is limited and consequently dependent, the inevitability of its ceasing to exist is irrefutable. For example the dependent object/thing is undoubtedly dependent on something else otherwise self-dependence would have to be interpreted as being independent. Having already established that the limited object has to be dependent, we must consider the relationship of that 'something else' which it depends on.

Firstly irregardless of what that 'something else' is, it is conclusive that if that 'something' was taken away from the object/thing, the object/thing will inexorably end. For example should we come across a new substance of which we have no scientific or previous knowledge of, we can still by looking at it, observe its limitations with regards to mass and space. We can also then consequently conclude that it is dependent. As to what it is dependent on, this is beyond the scope or requirement of the discussion. For the purpose and aim of our discussion (to establish the existence or non- existence of a Creator), what the substance depends on is irrelevant. What is clear is that whatever the substance depends on, if that thing which the substance is dependent upon is removed from it, then the substance will naturally end. Thus anything which is limited must be dependent. For it to be dependent, it must also therefore have an end.

From the observation of the reality we can also conclude that if something has an end then it must also have a beginning. This is conclusive by the fact that something cannot end unless it already existed. For example the animal cannot die (end) unless it already exists. So for something to exist it must have had a beginning. We know this from the perception of our reality and that this is the law of everything we sense in our domain. To claim that something has an end and doesn't have a beginning would not only go against the ration, but is lacking any evidence to substantiate such a claim. Therefore the things which we perceive in our domain (the Universe) are limited, hence dependent and consequently possess a beginning and an end.

Cause and Effect

The observation of reality leads one to conclude that in life every effect has a cause. This is something apparent, obvious and even appreciated by the small infant. Despite the attempts of philosophers and so called thinkers devising major theories to explain the issue, the comprehension of it is sensed by every human.

For example, when a noise is heard, the cause of this effect is instantaneously searched for. It would not be acceptable for man to dismiss it as an effect without a cause. This is due to the previous information man acquires that every effect has to have a cause. Furthermore should an effect occur such as a strange noise in a house, the inhabitant would not rest easily until he has resolved what the effect of the cause was. It would be inconceivable for the man to ignore it as an effect without a cause and rather he would try and answer it despite lacking knowledge as a creaky floorboard, dripping tap or a restless cat outside.

If one now observes the reality of the celestial bodies which we can sense as possessing a beginning, it therefore must be understood that the beginning in itself is an effect. For this effect to exist there must have been a cause. By using enlightened thought we can thus establish that anything which has a beginning must have either been made or created as these are the only two possible causes for the effect of a beginning.

The 3 Possibilities

Some may argue that, 'certain celestial bodies such as the Sun or the Moon existed prior to our birth and are most likely to still exist after our death. Therefore how can we be sure that they have a beginning and an end when we have never witnessed it?' To resolve this qualm one must consider the three possibilities of the existence of one of these celestial bodies, such as, for instance, the Sun. Firstly it could be argued that the Sun created itself. Another argument could be that the Sun was not made or created but rather is eternal and is devoid of a beginning or end. Or thirdly, that the Sun was indeed made or created by another being/thing. There are no other possibilities for the Sun's existence i.e. either it made/created itself, it wasn't created, or something else created/made it.

To consider the first possibility i.e. the Sun creating/making itself. Such a notion is ludicrous and irrational from its very origin. For something to create or make itself, then the consequence of this is that it already existed prior to its creation. Such a suggestion is preposterous as it is obvious that prior to the Sun's creation, it did not exist, so how could it have created itself? To elaborate, can a human create himself if prior to his birth he wasn't alive to do so? If one extends this example further it can be applied to the infantile 'Big Bang' theory. Yet again how can anyone with an iota of intelligence truly believe that the World created itself via a bang prior to the World even existing? Clearly this possibility is flawed.

As for the second possibility i.e. the Sun being eternal, devoid of a beginning and end. Again observing the rational reality one can sense that the Sun, despite being gargantuan in terms of mass and shape/dimension, still occupies a certain mass and space. Thus as explained earlier the Sun must be limited which consequently means that it is dependent. Irregardless of what the Sun is dependent on, it is irrefutable that whatever the thing is that it is dependent on, should it be taken away from the Sun then the result is that the Sun will end. By knowing that it has an end we also know that it must have a beginning and hence must have been either created or made. This is the reality for the Sun and celestial bodies like it within the Universe of which we did not witness ourselves the beginning and end of.

Made or Created

Throughout the discussion we have concluded by the rational thought that things have either been made or created. When using these terms it is imperative to understanding their evident meanings and not the bastardised version exported by the kuffar. In the capitalist society man has made himself sovereign and legislator so thus it is inevitable that man would ascribe to himself the attribute of creation. For example it is commonly addressed that 'man created this...' and 'man created that', or 'man's finest creation' etc. To use such terms are not only morally and linguistically wrong, they are also in direct opposition to the reality.

Man does not and cannot create. To create would be to produce something from nothing - this from the observation of reality is beyond man's capabilities. Instead what man does, is make. Whenever man produces something such as a car, a computer or even his excrement it is always by the manipulation or usage of other things. Without the raw materials or means available to man, he is helpless and unable to produce anything new. Thus man does not create as he is not producing something from nothing, rather he makes. This is the position of man and this is a further limitation upon him. It is also this which should catalyse him further to explore the reason and coming of his existence.

The Universe

The question related to the Universe and its coming of existence is unique to the previous discussions and observations of the things existing within it. Firstly one is not able to perceive the dimensions or (if it has any) boundaries of the Universe. Hence the question of concluding whether the Universe is limited or unlimited cannot be answered by referring to its dimensions and boundaries as they are not directly sensed by the humans. So how does one attain whether the Universe is limited or unlimited? Surely if the Universe is unlimited then it has no beginning or end and thus must be eternal leaving one to conclude the non-existence of a  Creator

To resolve this question is simple despite numerous attempts by fanciful philosophers and scientists to confuse and complicate the issue. If one were to perceive the object/things within the Universe we would inevitably conclude that they are limited. Due to the object/thing being within the Universe it is also undoubtedly part of it. Therefore to deduce that the Universe is unlimited is nonsensical as the limited object/thing within the Universe is in itself a part of the Universe and therefore a limitation upon it. Furthermore the Universe is made up of several limited celestial bodies which, if added or collected together will always amount to a limited total, i.e. a limited Universe.

Consequently the Universe, being the sum of all the things within it/which make it up, is definitely limited because the things within it are limited, whose total will also be limited. Thus to conclude from the rational observation, the Universe is limited hence meaning that it is also dependent. The aspect or thing, which it is dependent upon is not the issue of importance as of yet. What is axiomatic is that the depending factor means that the Universe must have an end and therefore a beginning. Thus the Universe has either been made or created.

The Inevitability of a Creator

Now it has been established that the Universe must have been made or created one needs to look at the thing responsible for the existence of the Universe.If we name the thing which created or made the Universe, A, we must consider that if A possesses a beginning, then this cannot be a Creator, rather this too is a creation. To explain this, one should again appreciate, that if A, possesses a beginning then its beginning must be an effect. The cause of this effect i.e. the beginning of A is something else either making or creating it. So thus if the Universe is made/created by A, and A has a beginning, then A itself has also been made or created. If we now extend this thought process, we must now consider what created/made A which in turn made/created the Universe. For the purpose of the discussion we will term this thing B. Once again, should B (the Creator/maker of A), possess a beginning then it too was created by something else and is not a Creator but rather a creation. This scenario of things responsible for the others existence which in turn are responsible for the existence of the Universe can continue relentlessly. The only correct, acceptable and possible solution is that somewhere in this chain one of the beings does not possess a beginning. The consequence of this is that this being without a beginning is not created or made rather it itself is the Creator. By not having a beginning this being would be independent because it would have been at one point the only existent thing, hence it would have had to have been self-sufficient. Thus it would consequently not have an end and hence be unlimited because by not having any dependency, beginning or end, there is nothing which possibly affects or limits it. It would be the starting point of everything because it is devoid of a beginning and hence has always existed. Therefore everything would have originated from this Creator. To term this being the Creator is also correct due to it being the first and only thing existent, thus the first creation from it would have truly been something from nothing.

This being would be responsible for the existence of everything as all things are either manipulated or made by the raw materials originally created by this Creator. The recognition of this Creator's existence is unavoidable as it is the only solution to the starting point of man, life and the Universe.

One Creator
 

Once it has been established that there must be a Creator or Creators the next question would be 'how many are there and which one does what?' While many religions adopt polytheism, even so called monotheistic beliefs have also a polytheistic approach towards the Creator. The oneness of the Creator is again a rational issue not requiring or depending on any textual evidence.
By establishing the existence of a Creator / Creators by the rational thought, one will have also established the attributes of it being unlimited, independent and eternal (i.e. having no beginning and end). If one were to pose the notion that several Creators exist this would imply the existence of several unlimited beings. While some have concluded that there can be only one Creator, they will use the premise of 'if there were many Creators there would be chaos and disorder in the world due to their conflicts and arguments'. Such a judgement would be shallow and bereft of the understanding that it is inconceivable that an unlimited being would comprise the limited attributes of a human such as arguing, conflict or the fathering of a son, as these limited attributes would themselves be a limitation upon the Creator.

To correctly assess the situation one needs to appreciate the uniqueness of being unlimited. If it were considered that there are several unlimited Creators the consequences are that they would each be creating and hence sharing the attribute of creation, being unlimited and independent. This goes against the ration as the sharing of these attributes negates their independence of each other e.g. one Creator is dependent on another to create something else. Furthermore the sharing of these attributes implicate equality amongst them which in turn is a limitation on each of them i.e. how can this thing be unlimited if there is something akin to it?

The capability of one Creator being equal to another or others is a limitation on all of them as they will no longer be unique. Hence they would all be limited, thus dependent and consequently possessing a beginning and an end. Therefore we would have to conclude that these beings are not the Creator/Creators, rather they are created by a one, unique, unlimited being that has no equal. This is what Muslims call Allah SWT.

Proof of the Quran

As for the Qur'an being from Allah, this can also be proven intellectually because its linguistic style is on a level of superiority that no human being can duplicate. When Allah revealed the Qur'an, he challenged the Arabs with the very thing that they were the undisputed masters of, which was their mastery of the Arabic language. In fact, the Arabs at the time were the ones who laid down the rules and defined the structure of Arabic, and no other generation has ever equalled them or will ever reach their level. When Allah revealed the Qur'an, the Arabs at the time realized that the Qur'an was beyond anything they could have imagined because its style and form was so far superior in its usage of Arabic language that even those who invented the language could not produce something anywhere at or near its level. And the challenge of the Qur'an was to produce just a verse, let alone an entire book, at the same level of linguistic superiority; yet the Arabs could not produce something equivalent to even a small verse in the Qur'an. If the Qur'an were a man-made book, then this challenge would have been met a long time ago, because the nature of any man-made invention is that it is eventually rivaled or improved upon.

Some other features of the Quran's style that establish its miraculous nature are the following:

1). The Qur'an was revealed over a 23 year period, yet it retains the same superior style of language that is beyond the need to be updated or revised. If you look at the work of any writer, he changes his style. This is a reflection of the nature of the human being. Because human beings are imperfect and limited, they have the capacity to grow and revise themselves, and this constant revision is reflected in their writing. From the moment the writer finishes his last sentence and then reviews his work, he begins to update and revise what he wrote. However, the Qur'an, over its 23 years of revelation, retains the same superior style that is beyond the need to be revised or updated. This illustrates that the Qur'an could not have been the work of a human being; otherwise, one would notice variations in its level of style over the 23 years of its revelation.

2). The manner in which the Qur'an was revealed was discontinuous, meaning that the temporal order of the revelation does not parallel the sequential order of the verses in the Qur'an. This is analogous to somebody beginning a book at page 300 and putting the pen down, only to start again a few months later at page 150, and then going back to page 10, and then going to page 240, and finally to continue at page 301, and so on. And when all is done, the complete work flows coherently without any flaws. This is impossible for a human being to accomplish.

Once we prove that Allah Exists and that the Qur'an is the Speech of Allah (which proves that Muhammad is a messenger of Allah), then we submit to everything that is in the Qur'an. Furthermore, the Qur'an mentions realities that are beyond our senses, such as Paradise and Hell, the Day of Judgment, Angels, etc. Because we have intellectually proven that the Qur'an itself is from Allah (which we have intellectually proven to exist without a doubt), then submitting to everything in the Qur'an cannot be considered 'blind faith.' We should never take anything on 'blind faith.' We should be convinced that Islam is correct without a doubt. Even after we are convinced that Islam is correct, our minds do not cease to function. Rather, they continue to function at their utmost; the only difference is that, as Muslims, their role is well defined. To prove the correctness of Islam, we use our minds to its capacity, and the only limitation is the limitations of the intellectual process itself. However, after we are convinced that Islam is correct, and we become Muslims, we continue to use our minds, but we use our minds to UNDERSTAND what Allah (swt) revealed to us.