NOTE: This is one of the first formulations of my argument for the existence of God (the second version to be exact). It was drafted on 29th April 2004. This was based upon an earlier (first) piece I wrote in 1999. I have changed and amended my argument since then, so do not use this as a representation of my current argument or beliefs. However, that being said, the general structure and seeds of my current arguments proving God’s existence can still be gleaned from this very early piece.
Enjoy a (somewhat embarrassing) look into late-1990’s influenced fonts and colour styles that were still present in my work.
You can read the full essay below. Since it was created on an old version of Microsoft word, for compatibility I’ve rendered it in image slideshow.
Share this:
Categories: abdullah al andalusi, ARTICLES, Proofs for God, THEOLOGY, WRITINGS
Abdullah al Andalusi 
The only part of this I would disagree with is the idea that he can ‘define’ (I read determine) himself. If he can define himself to be whatever he wants, then he is subject to change. This is also a two-way implication in that If he is subject to change then he is determined.
(Scriptural evidence/guide against this is Quran 52:35, last part – of course this is not admissable in rational discourse before proving the Qur’an to be scripture, which is achieved through prophecies, miracles, mention in past scripture etc. after proving the necessity of the Incontingent Undetermined Determiner – Allah. It is interesting to note that Allah ends verse 36 with “Rather they are not certain” for those who hold any of the previous three false beliefs).
I was stuck on this issue for some time and so I made a dua and Allah provided me with this.
Disproof for a ‘necessarily existant but self-determined determiner’
————————————————————————————
Bismillah Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim
If the Self-determiner (SD) as we shall call it is as it is, then it is subject to change, therefore it is subject to time (as one thing can not actually be a different thing without being subject to time). The act of SD determining cannot be an act not subject to time, otherwise SD who is subject to time would not be able to perform a timeless act (it would imply SD is both subject to time and timeless, a contradiction).
Therefore SD’s determining is an action in time. Therefore SD’s determining itself is subject to change. We ask now, in the first moment in time, who determined SD the way it is? We say that “SD determined themselves” – after all they are the self-determined.
This means that at the beginning of time, SD already had a ‘determining’ such that it could determine itself that way (i.e. the set of things that SD’s determining can determine either way had SD able to determine themselves as opposed to not having it – all of this is possible as we say his determining is subject to change and because we say it is self determined.)
We then ask, who then determined that SD had its ‘determining’ such a way?
At this point one has a number of options, all of them lead to contradiction e.g. ‘nothing determined SD that way’ – nothing is not something and so cannot act, ‘another self-determined thing determined SD’ – then we can follow the above through back into this situation, ‘another determined but not self-determined thing determined SD’ – leads to contradiction when we note that the determined things must be themselves determined ad infinitum, and that any determiner we make cannot determine the sub-determiners under that which they determine without giving way to an undetermined determiner and occasionalism,
(Note that three false views are mentioned in the Qur’an 52:35-6: creation from nothing (determination by nothing), self-creation (self-determination) and limited creation by that which itself is created (determination by the determined).)
The only option we are left with is to conclude an undetermined determiner determined SD.
Consequently, after proving occasionalism, which I am too lazy to type out right not (essentially relies on what I have stated above next to ‘another determined’), i.e. that the cause/determiner/creator of all things literally causes/determines/creates all things and so that is subject to it has no true ability to cause/determine/create, then this implies that SD is not even determining itself in the first instance – it’s act of determining is an accident that is simply the result of the determiner choosing to determine it as if it was determining itself i.e. its determining is an illusion.
Thus we conclude that a “Self determined” determiner (or definer etc.) cannot exist in reality.
(I have a feeling someone will misread the above as some kind of disproof for our free will – it is not. Our free will is undestood as a relation as discussed by Sadr al-Sharia* – and so is not subject to causation/determining etc. Also our free will does not allow us to actually create or determine ‘possible beings’ – it merely allows us to want/desire one thing over another without actualising that action – Allah then creates our actions if he so wills.)
I thank al-Haqq for the proof he has provided me. And he is the provider of all things.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Other than that I have to thank Abdullah al-Andalusi for the enlightening read. I particularly like the section on what is real – things need to have attributes in order to be existant. May Allah grant him even more knowledge and make him disseminate that.
May Allah protect both of us and all rationalists from disease of Kibr that effects so many of those who engage in this discourse – I of course do not consider myself a scholar in this field, but I already feel the effects that such disease brings to the rational one.
I look forward to benefiting further from him in his Dawah masterclass, Insha’Allah.
LikeLike
Also I do note that the above is not a representation of Abdullah al-Andalusi’s current views, as he has said above, I probably should have read that before writing up a disproof *facepalm*
LikeLike
JazakAllah khairun for reading this relic of the past, and for commenting.
I’m more precise with my definitions of my words today, and the form of my argument has changed somewhat. However, I believe your critique is based upon misunderstanding the article (which is understandable, since the article’s wording wasn’t as precise and clear as my arguments are today).
When I wrote that God can define His own attributes, I wasn’t referring to God making himself (as that would be absurd), but rather I was referring to ‘attribute’ as His actions i.e. he defines His own effects.
By “attribute” (an english word), I wasn’t referring to asma wa al siffat (Arabic terms associated with Islamic theological meanings). By ‘attribute’ I meant only the effects of a thing, which denote the actions it has taken (e.g. a chair is solid only because it “pushes back” against you when you touch it).
Since God can undertake any action He pleases to do, then unlike a finite thing that can only do up to its limits, God can do anything, and that is all I meant by “defining its attributes”. The phrasing was imprecise and unclear and I’ve long changed it to prevent confusion.
P.S. My (former) choice of phrasing using the *english* word ‘attribute’ should not be confused with the asma wa siffat, and *has nothing to do* with the Islamic theological debate on whether or not Allah (SWT) was always to be ‘attributed’ as the Creator before He created. I advocate no position on that debate, and stress that this is best left for scholars to (endlessly continue) to debate.
As Muslims we simply affirm that Allah (SWT) is the Creator, as He revealed to us, and we affirm that He always had the ability to create. Both statements that are evident from witnessing His creation as well as intellectual reflection upon it.
LikeLike
JazakAllah Khair Ustadh for clarifying what you meant back then. I think that when we start on the path of rational thinking, we have the correct notions in our heads but we don’t use the correct terms, due to simply being unaware of them – but this shows that it isn’t the terminology that matters but rather what one intends to convey.
On that issue of the scholarly disagreement, I understand it is a reasonable difference of opinion, even though my own personal opinion, however insignificant, is that he should always be attributed as the creator simply due to his transcendence from time.
I guess the whole issue is if you look at it from the perspective of the divine (i.e. free from time and change) or if you look at it from the perspective of the creation (subject to time and change). Perhaps some might say it is just semantical.
Anyway I look forward to benefiting further from you inshaAllah.
LikeLike
salam dear br Abdullah May Allah bless you with your courageous work Ameen I have translated the Quran in plain English, visit: http://www.majesticquran.co.uk I can send you a copy Let me know the postal address walam *Dr Musharraf Hussain OBE, DL* CEO & Chief Imam Karimia Institute 0115 8415806 | karimia.com | musharrafhussain.com
[image: https://twitter.com/DrMusharrafH%5D [image: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOvl4gnJ63AlQLYaF-7YT9A%5D
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:05, Abdullah al Andalusi wrote:
> Abdullah al Andalusi posted: ” NOTE: This is one of the first formulations > of my argument for the existence of God (the second version to be exact). > It was drafting on 29th April 2004. This was based upon an earlier piece I > wrote in 1999. I have changed and amended my argument since t” >
LikeLike
Please revise the essay and republish it.
LikeLike
why?
LikeLike