Liberal Kommentar

Diskussionsinlägg på webbplatsen 'Argument och fakta'

The problematic combination of supremacism and
'proofs' for the existence of God in Islam

Proposed proofs for the existence of an almighty God have a long tradition in Christianity. Today most people realize that they are fallacious, and to the extent that some still believe in them, it is not an issue. Such beliefs do not cause any problems for others, and everyone has a right to his or her own beliefs.

Similar 'proofs' exist also in the case of Islam, but they are more of a problem in that context. The reason is that if the basic doctrines of Islam were to be objectively provable, then all aspects of Islamic doctrine would have to be considered as universally valid, including the most archaic ones (in our view) among its behavior rules and rules of punishment.

Moreover, Islam also has a supremacist component according to which other religions (other monotheistic religions, to be exact) are subordinate, and their practitioners are only allowed to exist if they conform to the overall rules set by Islam. This would also become absolute truth if one could prove the existence of God as described in the Quran.

It may be tempting to consider this as an obvious case for reductio ad absurdum, but in view of the widespread circulation of such proposed proofs in the case of Islam, it is worthwhile to devote some consideration to the matter. In this article I shall review an article by Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris with the title 'Why Islam?' where he argues that rational arguments alone are sufficient for adopting Islam. This article was first published in the early 1990's, and it was republished in an extended version in 2017 [pan-12658]. A condensed version of its arguments appears also on the website for 'The Quran Project' [pan-12694].

Moreover, Dr. Idris has been described as "one of few Muslim Scholars of this era who comprehended the knowledge of Islam and Western Ideologies" [pan-12670]. In view of the respect that Dr. Idris apparently enjoys in his own community, it may be worthwhile to consider his reasoning and his arguments in some detail.

A brief summary of Dr. Idris' article

In his article, Dr. Idris makes a distinction between rational and irrational commitments to beliefs, where the former may be based both on direct observation of the world, and on inference where we 'know of the existence and comprehend the nature of a cause through the evidence of the effects'. Irrational commitments, on the other hand, are those where people commit themselves to ideas simply by having 'faith'. Dr. Idris assigns little credibility to the latter as he writes "it is natural for us to demand that our way of thinking and living be based solely upon those concepts which can be verified as being true".

On my part, I would disagree with Dr. Idris on this point, although it is not important for his main argument. This will be explained later on in this note.

Anyway, since Dr. Idris wishes to rely on rational grounds for beliefs, he proceeds to an argument that Islam can be proven rationally. As a first step, he compares the belief in 'a singular, all-knowing entity which has created the universe' with the belief in 'an atheistic ideology'. He argues that the latter has significant shortcomings, which however pertain to its social effects rather than to whether it can be verified as being true. He then proceeds to discuss theistic doctrines, of which there are many, and specifies seven properties and argues that any theistic doctrine must satisfy these in order to be acceptable. The article is concluded with the following statement:

If one uses these tests and above all, rationality, one would find the Quran unique and worthy of investigation. It is interesting to note that the Quran itself stresses the above-mentioned approach. ...

For a critical reader, this conclusion suggests immediately that the proposed tests are somehow biased in favor of Islam. This aside, we shall discuss critically the set of tests that Dr. Idris proposes and applies.

Discussion of the list of criteria

Since no divine entities can be observed directly, any knowledge about them must necessarily be obtained from observations that can best be explained by assuming the existence and the properties of such entities. Dr. Idris relies on this view for his arguments, and it is of course entirely in line with how scientific knowledge is obtained. He also observes that explanations of this kind must be restricted by certain conditions of well-formedness, which in his case are the seven properties that he proposes.

Unfortunately, however, he omits a number of conditions that are important from the point of view of rationality as well as of science. To begin with, when acquiring knowledge it is important to ask the question "how can the following observations be explained?" rather than "what observations can be found that would support the following hypothesis?". Also, when looking for an explanation for given observations, it is important to consider whether one can imagine more than one explanation, and to check all of them for whether they can adequately explain the observations.

If several explanations pass this test, then additional rules can come into play, such as Ockham's Razor that stipulates that one shall prefer the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions.

In the case of Dr. Idris' treatise, the observations that he wishes to explain are 'the design of nature itself, which we can freely examine', to use his words. It appears however that he has discarded the atheistic explanation far too easily, since his only arguments against it refer to its social effects. These are of course irrelevant for its validity as an explanation for the 'design of nature'.

With respect to the seven required properties, there is a notable omission: explanations are only useful if they are falsifiable. Suppose, for example, that we propose to explain the design of nature itself by the simple statement 'God created nature according to his free will". An observation such as "the sky is often blue" will then be consistent with the proposed explanation, since it means that God created the sky that way. However, the (imagined) observation 'the sky is never blue' will also be consistent with the explanation according to the same reasoning. In fact, whatever observation one makes or imagines, it will be consistent with the proposed explanation. Therefore it is useless, it does not say anything, and in particular it is not able to predict anything that we did not know already.

Comparing the atheistic and the Islamic explanations for observed facts

In order to bring the present issue in line with standard rational thinking, as far as possible, let us formulate two alternative explanations for the design of nature itself, and compare them in this way. For simplicity we restrict 'Nature' to 'phenomena in the part of the world consisting of the planet Earth, the sun and the moon'. Besides the physical phenomena there, I shall also include the occurrence of particular phrases in the Quran as parts of the Nature that is to be explained.

The two candidate explanations or (to use the scientific term) the two hypotheses are:

(1) Nature is a dynamic system that evolves over time according to the laws of physics. This applies both to the system as a whole and to its closed subsystems (that is, parts of the entire system that can be considered as independent of the rest). With respect to the Quran, it was compiled by Mohammed and his followers by combining and editing parts of earlier religious texts, such as the Torah.

(2) Nature as well as Humanity are the creation of an almighty and perfect God who has designed them according to his plan that is in principle unknown to us. However, since the laws of physics have also been designed by God, they can bear witness of his work. Moreover, God has communicated to Humanity some of his intentions as well as certain rules that Humanity should obey, and some statements about Nature. The Quran is his final and perfect communication.

Although there is an immense number of observations of Nature that one could test these hypotheses on, most of them are irrelevant for distinguishing these candidate hypotheses since the Quran does not say anything about them, and since the laws of physics are included in both hypotheses. Interpretation of such observations in terms of physics or by reference to random chance are equally possible under both hypotheses. With respect to them, hypothesis (1) is therefore to be preferred according to Ockham's law.

There are however a few observations about the 'design of Nature' where these two hypotheses do differ, in particular when the Quran is also taken into account. Here are a few of them.

(a) The duration of the solar year is not a multiple of the duration of the lunar cycle. There is no specific reason for this, and it causes significant inconvenience in those calendars that are based on those durations, such as the Muslim calendar which is defined and used in the Quran. If Nature were the result of intelligent design by an all-knowing entity, then this anomaly is contrary to what one would have expected. Under hypothesis (1), on the other hand, there is no reason to expect any particular relation between the two cycles.

(b) In areas of earth near the poles, the days are very long and the nights are very short during the summer, and the contraray occurs during the winter. However, the Quran forbids the intake och food and drink during the daylight period during the Ramadan, and makes no adjustment for the conditions near the poles. This is quite contrary to what one would expect from an all-knowing entity. The matter has been discussed by Muslim scholars, and the verdict has been that no exception should be made since there is no support for it in the Quran. The only answer to the question of the reasons for this rule in the first place, is 'Allah knows best'.

Hypothesis (2) does not give any satisfactory answer, therefore, whereas under hypothesis (1) the explanation is obvious: both the Quran and its sources were written and compiled in the Middle-East area, and there is no reason to believe that its authors would be aware of conditions to the extreme north and the extreme south.

(c) In this context it is also appropriate to mention the claim that the Quran contains a statement of the 'Big Bang' theory about the origin of the universe. This idea is fairly widespread, and Dr. Idris describes it as follows:

... the Quran [which] speaks of the Big Bang, the expanding universe and galactical evolution and is far in advance of current science, constantly pre-empting our discoveries in nature and history.

The actual observation underlying this claim seems to be the verse 30 of the Surat al-Anbiya' which goes as follows:

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? , vilket förklarar att framställningen bitvis har blivit litet korthuggen.

The claim that this verse foretells the Big Bang theory is due to Mirza Tahir Ahmad, head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, who asserted it in his book Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth, and it has also gained acceptance outside the Ahmadiyya.

From the point of view of our hypothesis (1), the natural explanation of verse 30 would be that it is derived from a similar statement in the book of Genesis, in the Torah. Viewing it (or its source) as a reference to the Big Bang seems to be a very far-fetched explanation.

A conclusive comparison of the two hypotheses would of course require checking them against a much larger set of observations. However, even these simple examples serve to cast serious doubt both on the methodology that Dr. Idris uses, and on the conclusions that he draws while using it.

Strong or weak assumptions about deities

A few remarks about the choice of hypothesis (2) are also in place. In the lecture by Dr. Idris, it is assumed that the universe was created by a certain entity, and that this entity was singular, all-knowing, and intelligent. While discussing the variety of theistic and revealed ideologies, he states that they all consider God to be all knowing, all merciful, everarlasting, etc. At the same time, he states that the Bible describes God's knowledge as limited and imperfect (this must refer to the Torah; no such statement occurs in the New Testament), and he considers the Bible to be less reliable for this reason. The question arises, however, why are all these assumptions needed, and how can they be proven? When additional assumptions are included in a hypothesis, more evidence is required in order to validate it. Proving that God is all-knowing and intelligent is no easy task.

With respect to the claim that God is all-knowing, for example, one possible answer might be that the Quran says so. Well, this is a satisfactory answer if one can take for granted that the Quran is right in all respects, so according to hypothesis (2), God is all-knowing because he has said so himself. This is an obvious example of a circular 'proof'.

According to hypothesis (1), on the other hand, all one can say is that the authors of the Quran apparently believed that God is all-knowing.

To conclude, in any enterprise where one attempts to validate a hypothesis about a divine entity, it would be wise to make as few assumptions as possible about that entity or those entities, at least to begin with. As one example, one might start with a hypothesis that there exist benevolent, immaterial entities that may be present in particular situations (in dangerous ones, for example), and that are able to intervene there for the good of the persons involved. This hypothesis seems to be consistent with the intuitions of many people. If one can prove this in a convincing manner, then one could continue to more ambitious claims.

The legitimacy of 'irrational' beliefs

Dr. Idris writes also 'it is natural for us to demand that our way of thinking and living be based solely upon those concepts which can be verified as being true'. I want to disagree with him on this point and argue instead that the beliefs that he calls irrational are entirely legitimate as long as they do not infringe on anyone else's rights.

My argument is as follows. Religious faith may be the result of strong mental experiences (also known as revelations), or of one's upbringing in a religious environment. People whose faith is grounded in these ways will typically retain their faith until (if ever) they encounter overwhelming contrary evidence. This is fine as long as they themselves, and others as well, recognize the subjective character of these beliefs and accept that others may believe otherwise. In particular, if these 'irrational' beliefs include rules that would allow the holder to impose his will on others, or supremacist views about the relationships between the belief-holders and others, then those beliefs are of course not acceptable in a free society.

On the other hand, if the tenets of Islam were rationally provable, so that belief in Islam were rational and not merely irrational, then rules such as those would be obligatory. Fortunately this does not seem to be the case. In particular, Dr. Isis' arguments for the rational basis for Islam are invalid, as the present note has shown.

The problem of combining devotion with supremacism

At this point we can return to the main theme of this article. With all due respect for Islam and for muslims in general, it seems to me that we have a serious problem because of the combination of the following three apparent circumstances:

(1) There is a large number of people in the world who are absolutely convinced of the divine origin and the unquestionable truth of the teachings of Islam;

(2) These teachings include statements to the effect that Islam is set to dominate other ideologies and religions, and that it is predestined to take over the entire world;

(3) These teachings also include statements to the effect that in certain circumstances it is 'right' to use violence in order to hasten the arrival of the expected takeover.

This means that there is a sizable number of people that are willing to work towards an Islamic takeover, and there seems to be a much larger number of people that condone and support the activities of the first group.

This is the threat of Islam in a nutshell, in my view. From this perspective, the problem with articles such as the one of Dr. Idris is that, although they are completely fallacious, they can further reinforce the beliefs described in items (2) and (3). It is in this sense that his article and others like it are so problematic.

For this reason it is not a good idea to simply ignore such articles, and instead it is important to react to them and to expose the hollowness of their presumed 'rational' arguments.

Referenced documents

pan-12658    Why Islam? .
Nadeem Haque i Quranicosmos, 2017-.

pan-12694    Rational Answers to Ideological Commitments.
i The Quran Project.

pan-12670    Biography / Jaafar Sheikh Idris.
Jaafar Sheikh Idris i Egen webbplats.