Were They Created By Nothing, or Were they themselves the creators?
In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy
Allaah (The Most High) said:
أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ
Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Imaam Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) said:
Ponder upon this reiteration and restriction which necessitates establishment of a proof through the closest means to that and through the most eloquent of expressions. Allaah said that they were created after they were not existent; so were they created without a creator? This is not possible in the view of everyone with understanding and intellect that there can be something made without a maker and a creature without a creator. If a man were to go past a deserted place that has no building in it, but then he went past it (again) and saw in it buildings, castles and structures, he will neither doubt nor harbour extreme scepticism that it was a builder and a constructor who built and constructed them.
Then Allaah said: [ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُون] [Or were they themselves the creators?]
This is also impossible that a slave comes into existence by creating himself; because the one who is neither able to prolong his life after his existence and the means of life even for an hour, nor is (he able to prolong it equal to) the length of a finger, a finger nail or a string of hair, then how can he be a creator of himself whilst being in a state of nonexistence.
So after both these affairs are nullified, then it is determined (without any doubt) that they have a creator and an originator who created and originated them; and He is the True God that deserves their worship and thanksgiving. Therefore, how can they associate other (false) gods as partners to Him whilst He alone created them?! [End of Quote: Source: As-Sawaa-iq Al-Mursalah 2/493-494]
Ustaadh Abu Iyaad Amjad Rafiq (may Allaah preserve him) wrote in a discussion at www.salafitalk.net
Bobby, since the late 70s and 80s there has been an increase in the number of scientists and academics acknowledging that there must be a creator in order to account for the universe. Due to the advancements made in the fields of genetics and cosmology, the acceptance of a creator is inevitable. Theories such as evolution are no longer tenable. Evolutionists have faced growing opposition over the last two decades due to undeniable implications of the discoveries in genetics and cosmology.
For your information, one of the great figureheads of contemporary atheism, Anthony Flew, announced in 2004 that he is no longer an atheist and has accepted the existence of a creator.
This sent shock waves through “militant atheism” and his former colleagues began to attack and vilify him. I recently read his book called “There is a God – How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”.
Although Flew accepts that there must be a creator, he has not committed to any religion. In his book when one looks at the reasons, considerations or the specific arguments that led him to recant from atheism, you will find that they are not too far off from the implications of the meanings of these verses in the Qur’an in Surah at-Tur:
“Were they created by nothing? Or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth, they do not have any firm conviction”
If you look at the tafseer (explanation) of this verse you will find the wording in these verses can provide the following meanings:
– Were they created by nothing, i.e. without an originator or creator
– Were they created from nothing or as inanimate matter – i.e. without a father or mother, and not by way of an embryo in its various stages, and not from sperm and ovum, were they created as inanimate beings
– Were they created without any purpose or end goal i.e. is there no end goal or purpose to their lives
– Were they creators of themselves (they would never and cannot claim this)
– Were they the creators of the heavens and the earth (they would never and cannot claim this)
The answers to all the questions are in the negative which leads to only one conclusion.
Flew says on page 88-89:
Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God.
The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third, is the very existence of nature…”
“My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument. Over the last two decades my whole framework of thought has been in a stage of migration. This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature …”.
And some of the chapter headings in his book include,
– Who wrote the laws of nature?
– Did the universe know we were coming?
– How did life go live?
– Did something come from nothing?
Now I would not normally make mention or use of the recantation of any atheist. However, since Flew describes himself as the “most notorious atheist” who is in fact regarded as such by his peers, and that in the circles of contemporary atheism, Flew’s paper, “Theology and Falsification” written over 50 years has probably been the most important work that invigorated and revived the atheistic academic assault in the decades to follow – I have made mention of his departure from atheism.
I’ve mentioned Flew here to illustrate the point that your conclusion that there cannot be a God, which you described as logical is a very subjective judgement.
You should also note that when many of the contemporary arrogant atheists noticed this trend over the last twenty years, they stepped up their efforts to win the attention of the general population, fearing that they might follow this growing realization against academics and scientists of the failure of Darwinian Evolution and atheist philosophy to provide sufficient answers. They have been labelled the “New Atheists” and their movement, “New Atheism”. This includes people like Richard Dawkins who is the more popular and outspoken of this group.
I also read Dawkins “the God Delusion” as it was so highly promoted. When you get to the crux of his argument in the hundreds of pages that are often filled with sarcasm, insults, mockery, and so on, he says that the issue of intelligent design, or that the argument that there is purpose-driven intelligent design evidenced in nature does cause a big problem (i.e. its an issue that cannot be brushed aside easily by atheists) however, “natural selection” is an alternative, so why can’t we just accept “natural selection” as an alternative to accepting God. That’s the essence of what he is saying – not much substance at all.
Most of the writings of these “new atheists” use ad hominem attacks, sarcasm and mockery in order make atheism the mainstream amongst the general population. The wave of books that have appeared to promote atheism in recent years are just books aimed at the general populace, to sway them and keep from away from the reality of there being a creator.
If you research into the atheism of the last century you will realise that one of the biggest ideas found early in the 20th century to support atheism was logical positivism, the general idea of which is that the only statements that are true and meaningful are those that can be verified by sense experience – and that anything that cannot be verified by sense experience cannot be affirmed. This was later abandoned by its main proponent (A.J. Ayers) as being untenable, and atheists were then looking for the “next big thing” in atheist philosophy – until Flew came with his famous paper. You have to understand that these people from their arrogance, presume that atheism is the standard, and from that point proceed to find arguments, or invent philosophies that will support them in their conclusion. So you will see that they have “no real conviction” in anything. They are in fact internally confused, contradictory and do not have any firm standing.
They are as Allaah has stated, “Were they created by nothing? Or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth, they do not have any firm conviction”
After having said all this there are important points to mention:
It is not a requirement that a Muslim “prove” his faith by way of scientific proofs for the existence of Allaah. Unfortunately this is a methodology promoted by some modernists – they claim that unless a Muslim is able to furnish scientific proofs for the existence of their Lord, that their faith (Imaan) is deficient. This is a false claim.
The first obligation is to actually declare one’s faith in in Allaah, not to learn scientific proofs after having assumed a position of doubt.
Secondly, in the Qur’an where are we enjoined to reflect upon the natural phenomena around us, this is in order for us to reflect, ponder and as a consequence affirm His sole right to be worshipped. The proof of the existence of a Creator by way of the the creation is not the primary issue, as that is a matter that is beyond doubt, as Allaah has said in Surah Ibrahim, “Is there any doubt concerning Allaah, the Originator and creator of the heavens and earth?“. When we look at the explanations of such verses in the Qur’an we find the orthodox Muslim commentators explain how these natural phenomena are a proof that the sole right for all forms of worship belong to Allaah, and Allaah alone. Thus, the primary purpose in reflection upon the creation is to acknowledge that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah alone, and not to merely affirm that He is the creator and originator.
So when we are involved in the discussion of the existence of a creator, we need to bear these things in mind.
abu.iyaad amjad bin muhammad