Fabric of the Cosmos

Quantum Cognition

Unity of Existence

Only God is Existent, and all of Creation is but a grandiose mirror reflecting His Divine Essence and Attributes.

Shaykh al-Akbar Imam ibn Arabi al-Hatimi at-Tai termed this concept "the Unity of Existence" — al-Wahdat al-Wujud.

In Sufi terminology, Wahdatul-Wujud means to believe that all the Mawjudat, that is, everything that exists and is present around us and beyond us, is an indication of God’s Presence, and everything besides God is Subjective, that is, a thing that exists, merely exists because God has subjected it to exist and therefore it has no existentiality of its own. Therefore, everything that exists is a representation of Takwin, the Creative Act of God.

A common argument against the concept of al-Wahdat al-Wajud, often brought up by the Wahhabi Muslims such as the likes of Dr. Zakir Naik and Dr. Bilal Philips, is that it is Shirk in the form of Pantheism: untrue.

Pantheism is the belief that God is present in creation in the physical sense which is, thus, worshiped. This leads to paganism and idolatry as the objects in creation are directly worshiped as God, reducing Them to being bound in three-dimensional entities existing within spacetime.

In sharp contrast, Wahdatul-Wujud enhances God beyond any space, time or dimensional boundaries by stating that if everything in being was extended to infinity, nothing would remain but God. That is, a two-dimensional picture of
a house can be rendered into three-dimensional form, converting the image into an actual house with height, weight, width and length. However, if everything in existence was, similarly, rendered into infinite dimensions, then it would all cease to exist except for God. Therefore, in the greater scheme of things, we conclude, nothing exists but God.

Think of it this way: You paint a picture. The picture is not real. It is a two-dimensional rendering of whatever was going through your head as you illustrated it on a canvas. It doesn't really exist – you gave it form. Now, think this: you and everything around you is a picture, a three-dimensional rendering of the Will and Creative Attribute of God.

This is the Ultimate Truth. This is the Unity of Creation and All of Existence. This is Wahdat al-Wujud.

— Fahim Ferdous Kibria

Moral Philosophy and the Metaphysics of Ethics

Moral Philosophy

Aim: to establish the supreme principle of morality

Preface

Kant begins by systematizing knowledge (Kant is very fond of systematizing).

He makes the observation that Ancient Greek thinkers divided philosophy into three sciences:

1. Physics
2. Ethics
3. Logic

Kant agrees with this division but seeks to explain the reasoning behind this division by introducing new division.

•  Formal: concerned solely with the form of the understanding and form of reason itself;
  universal rules of thinking as such: this is logic
• Universal and necessary laws of thinking
• Can have no empirical (based on experience) component
•  So is “pure philosophy” – based on a priori principles
•  Material: concerned with specific objects and their laws (as opposed to the forms of the understanding and reason); consists of two parts
• Laws of nature: physics/natural philosophy
• Laws according to which everything happens
• Laws of freedom/moral philosophy
• Laws according to which everything ought to happen
• Does his description of ethics strike anyone as odd (laws of freedom)?
• The point: we see the importance of freedom and laws in ethics.
• Ethics differs from physics in that its laws, laws of freedom, are not descriptive but instead prescriptive.
• Both have an empirical component
• Empirical component of ethics is practical anthropology
• “Moral philosophy has to define the laws of the human will, to the extent that the will is affected by nature.”
• However, ethics can also be pure (based on a priori principles).
• When pure philosophy is limited to specific objects, it is called metaphysics. (Thus the name metaphysics of morals)
• Metaphysics of morals, and only the metaphysics, is moral philosophy.
• This part is also called the rational part.

The empirical and rational parts should not mix.
Metaphysics must precede the empirical part and must “be scrupulously cleansed of everything empirical” to know “how much pure reason can accomplish”

• He later states that anything which mixes pure and empirical principles “does not even deserve to be called philosophy…still less…moral philosophy”
• Practical judgment, sharpened by experience, is needed to discern the cases to which the moral law applies. However, the laws themselves do not draw upon experience. 

Why? Moral law, to be law, must carry absolute necessity to be morally valid – “valid, that is, as a basis of obligation.” It must also not hold only for humans but for any rational being. So, the law cannot be grounded in human nature or facts about us or our world, for these things which are contingent. Nothing empirical but pure reason only can be used in determining moral law

This “pure” moral philosophy is concerned with a “pure will” and not human volition generally.
The pure is not concerned with humans tend to do or what we often do but instead with what a rational will, free from inclinations (likes, dislikes, wants, desires, aversions, etc) can do. This will is motivated only by a priori principles.
It acts out of duty in accordance with the Moral Law; its actions are done for the sake of the moral law instead of merely conforming to it.

• There is a difference between done for sake of and conforming. If the actions is not done out of duty, then the coincidence of the action with the moral merely happens chance; it is a coincidence.
• Actions for the sake of duty are the only actions that are morally good. 

Ch. 1: Passage from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morality to the Philosophical

Good Will

Will: the ability to determine action according to principles.

• We have a will. My cat does not. 

Good will: the only thing good without qualification

• Constitutes an indispensable condition of our worthiness to be happy.
• It is the only thing with “intrinsic moral worth.”
• It is the only thing with intrinsic worth because a good will is the only thing that always has morally good ends.
• Though helpful, gifts of nature and of fortune do not; Villains can have wit, intelligence, and bravery.
• This is why it is the only thing good without qualification
• It has “intrinsic moral worth” because it “has full worth in itself” regardless of consequences.
• A good will is good even if it achieves nothing; utility adds nothing to its worth.

Since the notion that utility doesn’t matter to value at all is a bit strange, Kant presents an argument against utilitarianism (or at least a version of it).

• P1: “no instrument for any purpose will be found in that being unless it is also the most appropriate and best adapted for that purpose.”
• P2: reason is an instrument nature gave to us
• P3: Assume nature’s purpose for beings with reason and wills are their own individual preservation, welfare, or happiness. 
• P4: Reason is not the most appropriate tool for preservation, welfare, or happiness.
• Support: Instinct would be a better way of meeting these ends.
• Support: Reason is a poorly suited to achieve these ends.
• Casts reason in rather negative light here
• Reason provides “feeble and defective guidance”
• “Nature would have prevented reason from…presuming, with its feeble insights, to think out for itself a plan for happiness and for the means of attaining it.”
• Furthermore, those who devote their cultivated reason to the enjoyment of life and happiness end up far away from content.

C: So…Reason is an instrument not for happiness but for some “worthier” end; and rejection of P3.
Points to push back on:

• P1
• P4 – specifically if the focus of utilitarianism is not just on one’s own happiness but maximizing happiness.
  {as a side note, Mill wasn’t born until 2 years after Kant died} 

Kant moves from the above conclusion to the broader conclusion that since nature gave us reason, and reason controls the will, the purpose of reason must be to produce a will which is good in itself.

• Not the sole good, but the highest good and the condition on all the rest (goods of fortune and of nature)
• The will has its own kind of satisfaction – not happiness but “satisfaction from fulfilling a purpose which reason alone determines”
• Acting out of duty in accordance with the Moral Law (Note: moral law, not laws).

The Three Propositions Regarding Moral Duty

Proposition 1: To have genuine moral merit an action must be done from, not just according to, duty.

• The action cannot be opposed to duty
• The action must have a direct inclination, meaning that the actions is not done because the agent is compelled by another inclination
• Ex: hypnosis; involuntary spasms; being nice to look good in front of your boss; Kant’s example of a shopkeeper giving correct change.
• This also means that the action cannot be done out of self-interest
• Difficulty arises when direct inclination and something else is at play.  For something to be done out of duty, Kant implies that it must be done solely out of duty, out a direct inclination. So some actions can be in conformity with duty but not out of duty [so, acting out of sympathy, happiness, self-interest or self-preservation generally doesn’t count]

Proposition 2: “The moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth not in the objective to be reached…but in the maxim in accordance with which the action is decided upon.”

• This proposition eliminates at least one type of moral luck. Under a consequentialist view, one can try to do the right thing and be competent in doing the right thing but, through no fault of one’s own, one brings about a worse outcome. In this case, one has acted wrongly because of bad moral luck. Under Kant’s view, the focus is only on things fully within one’s control, assuming, of course, that we have free will.

Proposition 3: “Duty is the necessity of an act done out of respect for the law.”

• Respect is an activity of the will; “it is self-generated by a rational concept.” As such we can only respect what is “conjoined with [our] purely as a ground and never as a consequence”
• Kant claims we can never respect an inclination because an inclination – and so every object of volition – is an effect of the will.
• So we are left with the law itself. (law determined solely on basis of rationality and so free from and independent of inclinations)
• Worth, then, doesn’t have anything to do with results or possible results. 
• Kant also claims in footnote 2 that respect is the consciousness of my will’s submission to the law; the respect is thus the effect of the law on a person.
• Inclinations and their objections are excluded for another reason: their result could have been brought about by other causes.
• Recall that Kant is focused on the will, and the will has a “worthier end” than pleasure or self-preservation.

The will is important because Kant holds that only in rational beings is the highest and unconditional good to be found. In other words, only in rational creatures is morality to be had, and rationality requires a will. The idea of the law must determine the will for the will to act out of duty.

• Kant claims that to act with moral merit we need no insight into the ground for this respect. We must only have the appreciation of the moral law. 
• Since inclinations and the consequences of our actions are excluded, the duty gains a univerasalizability – a necessity. What is left is reason, and that is shared among and is the same in all rational beings.
• The moral law is universal and necessary. From these descriptions we can establish a form of the moral law: I ought to never act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should become a universal law.
• This doesn’t proscribe any specific action – it only establishes a template of sorts – a form – to which maxims must comply.

Metaphysics of Ethics

Acting from Duty

The chapter starts by addressing the claim that one cannot in fact point to an example of someone acting solely out of duty.

• Kant agrees. He claims that, even with the most searching and rigorous self-examination, we cannot know for sure that our motivation is based solely in duty, for there is always what Kant calls the dear self (hidden selfish-motivation). 
• As side note, it is interesting to juxtapose his stance here with a later comment made which states: “for the pure thought of duty and of the moral law generally…has an influence on the human heart much more powerful than all other motivations that may arise from the field of experience.” Apparently it is the fault of professors that the appeal of duty is lost. (I sincerely hope that Kant is wrong on this last point!)
• He claims that this observation is not a mark against the moral theory. Even if there were never any actions which sprang from pure motives, his theory would be fine because the question is “whether reason, by itself and independently of all appearances, commands what ought to be done.” Whether this or that actually occurs, Kant claims, is irrelevant.
• A phrase often repeated in moral discourse is “ought implies can.” Loosely, the phrase means that if we are morally required to X, we must be able to do X. Morality cannot require us to do the impossible. 
• If we assume that Kant is right that we can never know for certain that we are acting purely out of duty, can we know that it is possible for beings like us to act purely out of duty? 

Rant about How an Empirical Approach to Ethics is Bad

Long story short: 

• a priori and rational = good methodology is ethics
• empirical, “popular practical philosophy,” and reasoning from cases = bad methodology in ethics

According to Kant, moral reasoning from examples is the worst advice one could give in morality. Before drawing any conclusions from the example, we must first apply some moral standard or principle to it to see if it is fitting to be used as an example.

Introduction to the Will, Reason, and Laws

Kant claims that everything in nature “works in accordance with laws” but that only rational beings have the power to act in accordance with the idea of laws. Rational beings thus have wills. Reason works on the will to influence the principles of volition and to derive actions from laws.

• There are two types of relationships between reason and the will. 
• If reason is the only thing acting on the will, then objective principles will always be subjective. 
• However, other things can determine the will. If reason is not the sole determining factor of the will – if the will “is exposed to subjective conditions”, in other words, if the agent has inclinations – then the will is not in complete accord with reason, and objective principles will not necessarily be subjective ones. 
• Objective principles, when acting as constraints, are called commandments. The will can still be determined by such objective principles. However, the will, by its own nature, is not necessarily obedient to such principles. 
• The formulation of a commandment is called an imperative. 

Imperatives

• All imperatives are marked by a “must,” which emphasizes the constraining nature of imperatives. 
• All carry at least a type of necessary and state which actions will be good (in a sense) - either good period or good for something else. Necessary period or necessary for some further end. 
• All imperatives apply to wills, but no imperatives hold for a divine, or holy, will. 
• This is because imperatives are formulations of commandments, and commandments apply only when the objective principles are not subjective principles – i.e. when the will is not in complete accord with reason. 
• A good will would still be subject to objective principles but would simply not be constrained by them because reason would already be in harmony with the will. 
• Two types of Imperatives: 
• Hypothetical Imperative (HI): “declare a possible action to be practically necessary as a means to the attainment of something else that one wants” or may want 
• Ex: If you want to win the lottery you ought to buy a ticket. 
• Two sub-types: 
• Problematic practical principle: End is possible 
• Assertoric practical principle: End is actual 
• Names come from types of proposition in Aristotelian logic. Assertoric propositions state what is or is not the case; problematic propositions involve the possibility of something being true. 
• He mentions one type of hypothetical imperative in particular, imperatives of skill. In these imperatives there is not found a question as to whether the end is reasonable but good – only about what one would have to do to attain it.
• We thus need to be careful of how we read “good” in some passages of Kant
• Kant claims that there is one end that “we may presuppose as actual in all rational beings.” This end is perfect happiness
• We can suppose this purpose a priori; call prudence that which leads to it
• Note: Kant does not claim that this is the ultimate end of human conduct, like Mill does. He only states that it is one end that all humans share. 
• Categorical Imperative (CI): “represented an action as itself objectively necessary”
• An apodictic practical principle 
• Apodictic, like assertoric and problematic, refers to Aristotelian propositions. Apodicitic propositions are statements which assert things that are necessarily true or self-evidently true or false 
• The CI is not concerned with the material of the action or its result but instead with its form and with the principle from which the actions itself results. 
• **What is good in the action consists in the agent’s disposition.** 
• Kant slightly reconfigures the division and gives new names: 
• Rules of skill: HI 
• Also technical imperatives 
• Counsels of Prudence: HI – always assertoric practical principles 
• Involve necessity but only under a subjective and contingent condition 
• Also pragmatic imperatives 
• Commandments (laws) of morality – CI 
• Also moral imperatives 
• All recommend actions that are good either as a means to something else or good in itself. 
• How are these imperatives possible? How can we understand these imperatives to constrain our will? 
• Technical and pragmatic imperatives: whoever wills the ends also wills the means 
• He claims that the use of a mean is included in the concept of the end; when willing that an effect be the result of one’s actions, one already conceives of the causality involved. The causality involves the means. 
• Pragmatic imperatives are trickier because the concept of happiness is vague. Willing the means when one wills the end thus becomes more difficult because we don’t really know what perfect happiness requires. 
• Kant even says that determining what action will promote the perfect happiness of a rational being is “insoluble” 
• If he’s right, is this a problem for Mill? 
• Moral imperatives: 
• The response here is more difficult because objective necessity can’t rest on a presupposition like the HI can. 
• We also cannot settle the issue empirically, so…. Investigate a priori! 
• While we cannot know beforehand what a HI will contain, Kant claims that we know right away what the CI contains: a necessary conformity to it. 
• Our duties are derived from this one principle. This leads us to… 

The Categorical Imperative: 1 and 2

There are three main formulations of the CI, with a slight variation of the first one mentioned. It is important to keep in mind that Kant views each of the formulations as identical to the others. They are all formulations of the CI and not different categorical imperatives.

CI 1a: “Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
CI 1b: “Act as though the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature”

• What it means: We should act only if we can will that..
• 1a: everyone acts on the same principle we do without contradiction.
• 1b: the principle we act on become a law of nature. 
• While these are generally similar, there is a slight difference between the two – almost more of a slight difference in focus – that is highlighted in Kant’s discussion of the four examples. 
• Explanation of Examples:
• Borrowing Money: If we borrow money, state we will pay the loaner back, but have no intention of ever doing so, we act on a maxim that we cannot will to become universal law. Our larger goal is procuring money. If everyone acted on our maxim, then no one would ever lend money. Our maxim then undermines the practice of borrowing (and promising), creating contradiction. 
• Here, the focus is on “universal law.”
• Not helping others: If we acted on the maxim that we never help others, Kant claims we are acting on a maxim we cannot will to be universal law. This is because we sometimes seek help from others. 
• Here, the focus is on the act of what we can will to be universal. 
• Suicide: “A nature whose law was that the very same feeling meant to promote life should actually destroy life would contradict itself, and hence not endure as nature.” Basically, it would make no sense, and in a way be self-defeating, for nature to have as one of its laws “kill yourself whenever you don’t feel like living.”
• The focus here is on “law of nature.” 
• Not developing talents: even though nature could survive if everyone let their talents languish, Kant claims we cannot will that everyone would have such a natural instinct to eschew all development of talent. 
• As with the not helping others case, here the focus is on what we can will. 
• Possible Objections: 
• How do we appropriately describe a maxim? (Anscombe)
• Every action and goal has numerous descriptions. How we determine which ones are most salient? 
• Mill: “[Kant fails] to show that there would be any contradiction, and logical impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he show is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.”

Moving from CI 1 to CI 2

Kant returns to the question of how a CI is possible. Can we prove, a priori, that there is an imperative that commands (1) absolutely and (2) without further motivation?

• Absolutely: 
• If the law is necessary, then the law must be connected with the concept of the will of a rational being.
• Will is a power of determining oneself to act in conformity with the idea of certain laws.
• An end is what serves the will as the objective (as in object) ground of its self-determining. 
• Basically an end is the effect which the will wills
• A necessary end is given by reason and so must be equally valid for all rational beings (since there is no inclination involved, and form of rationality same in all).
• If it is equally valid for all, then it commands absolutely. 
• Without further motivation
• You can have either a subjective ground of desiring (called a driving-spring) or an objective ground of willing (called a motivating reason).
• Practical principles are formal if they abstract from all subjective ends and material if they are based on subjective ends, or driving-springs. 
• Subjective ends only have value in relation to a subject’s desiring.
• Since CI is formal and has objective grounds, it does not have value in relation to any further desiring, and so the CI commands without further motivation. 
• Since it is possible for an imperative to command in this way, something whose existence in itself had absolute worth (as opposed to subjective value) could be a ground of the CI. 
• Kant claims as rational beings are such things. We, or our rational natures, are ends in themselves.
• Kant asserts that this is the way in which a rational agent must conceive of her own existence. Since we all must hold this on the same grounds, the subjective principle is also objective. 

CI 2: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in any other person, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”

• What does CI 2 mean?
• We must always treat people as persons instead of things. While we can use others a means, we must never treat them merely as a means but instead must always treat them as beings with worth – a worth that they have independently of subjective desires. 
• In other words: how we treat a barista must differ from how we treat a coffee machine. One has dignity; the other has a price. 
• Explanation of Examples
• Borrowing money: we view the other person merely as means to our own end instead of as an agent desiring of respect. 
• Suicide: we are viewing our own selves as a means to maintaining a tolerable state of affairs.
• Cultivating talents: “It is not enough that an action that an action not conflict with humanity in our own person as an end in itself: it must also harmonize with this end.”
• Helping others: Not helping others will not conflict with humanity, but it will not harmonize with humanity either. 
• Roughly, we can avoid using ourselves or others as means, but we must be sure to also treat ourselves, others, and humanity in general as an end – as something with dignity or value – and we ought to promote things with intrinsic value. 

How do CI1 and CI2 fit together? Well, slightly different ways of looking at the CI.

• Objectively, ground lies in universality
• Subjectively, the ground of legislating lies in the end. So the ground lies in rational beings as end in themselves. 

The Categorical Imperative: 3

From the subjective ground of the CI follows that the supreme condition of the will’s harmony with universal practical reason is the Idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law, or…

CI3: “every human will is a will that enacts universal laws in all its maxims”
[This problem is the hardest version of the CI to follow, so just hang in there.]
What it means:

• We should reject maxims that conflict with the law-giving nature of the will. 
• A will that is a supreme law-giver cannot depend on any interest. Why? 
• Such a will would require yet another law in order to restrict the interest of self-love

In this version Kant emphasizes the self-legislating aspect of a will. The will is subject to the law but also gives the law to itself.

• When we thought of beings as merely subject to laws (without legislating such laws to themselves), “the law had to carry some interest, as stimulus or compulsion to obedience”; their will had to be compelled by something else to act in a certain way. The result was then always a conditional imperative. Do X if you have interest Y. 
• The notion of self-legislation shows how the law can constrain us in the absence of an interest or inclination: it constrains us because we give it to ourselves.

This notion of all rational agents as equal lawmakers (and, he tosses in there, as judgers of their own actions from this standpoint) leads to the concept of a kingdom of ends.

• Kingdom: systematic union of different rational beings under common laws. 
• Abstracting from “personal differences” and “private ends”, we can conceive of all ends being so systematically united. 
• This kingdom’s laws would relate to CI2, to the relation of us to each other as ends and means
• We are all members as lawgivers, and we must conceive of ourselves as lawgivers if we conceive of ourselves as ends in themselves. 

In other words, because we have dignity we are a rational being and so a member of the kingdom of ends.

• Dignity versus Price 
• Price indicates that the thing can be replaced; it has only relative worth (worth because someone values it). These things have a market price or attachment price.
• Dignity is what those things which are “exalted above all price” and have no equivalents possess. Dignity is the inner worth of ends in themselves have.
• Since “morality is the only condition under which a rational being can be an end in itself,” morality and humanity are the only things with dignity, though morality can confer dignity to actions though intentions, or maxims of the will.
• The basis of dignity is autonomy. (Autonomy is the ability of a will to legislate as a member of the kingdom of ends.) 

Categorical Imperative: Recap

All maxims have…

• A form: universality
• A matter: an end (rational beings)
• A complete determination: see CI3b; basically refers to the totality or all-comprehensiveness of its system of ends.

Autonomy and Heteronomy of the Will (almost done with Chapter 2!!!)

This entire discussion was supposedly started by an investigation into a good will, so Kant returns to this idea and tries to tie everything together.

Good will: a will is absolutely good if it cannot be evil, which means its universalized maxims cannot be in conflict with each other.

• End of a good will is a rational nature/being. 
• Such end must be self-sufficient. If it had to be brought about, then the goodness of the will would depend on consequences, which is bad. 
• Since the good will cannot be submitted to anything lower, the end must be itself.
• This shows the move from CI 2 (humanity as end in itself) to CI 3 (humanity as self-legislating). 
• Autonomy is the ability of a will to self-legislate as a member of the kingdom of ends.
• Morality and autonomy are thus linked, and the moral law is the law of freedom.

Another way to look at the relation between morality and autonomy:

• “Whatever constitutes by itself the absolute worth of human beings is that by which they must be judged”
• Autonomy is what gives persons dignity and so constitutes the absolute worth of humans. 

Autonomy of the will – some other attributes:

• An autonomous will is free from inclinations and does not act upon them. 
• Kant claims that the will is necessarily bound to the principle of autonomy, but to prove this we would have to give a critique of practical reason. 
• He does think that we can show that the principle of autonomy is the sole principle of ethics. This, plus the claim regarding how we must conceive of ourselves as being ends in themselves, is enough to get at basically the same thing.

Heteronomy of the will

• A will governed by inclinations; a will which does something because it wants something else.
• In other words, heteronomy arises when objects have sway over the will. 
• Two types of principles of morality which are based on heteronomy as their foundation:
• Empirical: drawn from principles of perfect happiness; built on either moral (think moral intuitions) or physical feeling.
• Not fit for moral laws because they are based in human constitution and so cannot be universal 
• Rational: drawn from principle of perfection; built on either the rational concept of perfection as a possible effect of our will or on the concept of perfection (God’s will) as a determining cause of our will
• Concept of perfection better than theological conception as a basis for morality, but both are also flawed
• An account based on the concept of perfection is circular; you cannot offer a proof without assuming the consequent at some point.
• Kant isn’t fond of using God as a basis of morality because we cannot directly apprehend Gods’ perfection and can only derive it from our own concepts, and these concepts generally include things like vengefulness, lust for glory and dominion, etc. 
• So (surprise surprise) Kant thinks heteronomy is a flawed foundation of morality for the above reasons, but also because of a more general criticism: such a basis can never command categorically. It always wills for some end, which is in turn a means for some other end, the limit being given by nature, and so is contingent. 
• Morality thus cannot come from a heteronomous will but must instead be bound with an autonomous will. 

The End (of Kant, for now)

— Professor Beth Henzel, Rutgers University

Metaphysics Of God

The universe is finite. Beginning from a single point in time as a constricted singularity of particles, dense and hot, and then expanding faster than the speed of light at the trillionth of a second following the Big Bang approximately 13.8 billion years ago, the universe is headed towards an end.

Stars turn into black holes, planets degrade and die, the fabric of the cosmos is ever being stretched apart by the accumulation of dark matter, and the expansion rate, after decelerating around 10.8 billion years ago due to the attractive gravitational pull of matter holding the myriad galaxies and solar systems together, has now begun to accelerate due to the repulsive gravitational push of dark energy.

Given the current knowledge of the expansion of the universe, it is an inevitable conclusion that the universe most certainly will end. As the universe expands ever faster, all of gravity's work will be undone. Clusters of galaxies will disband and separate. Then galaxies themselves will be torn apart. The solar system, stars, planets, and even molecules, quarks and atoms will be shredded down by the resultant consequences of the great cosmic phenomenon. The universe that was born in the Big Bang would end with the Big Rip: the end of all space and time and matter.

The ancient model of the endless, infinite universe has thus been proven to be false. A conceptual potential infinite aside, there can never quite be an actual infinite from a mathematical standpoint existing in the real world because the existence of an infinite number of anything leads to logical contradictions.

If the universe did not have a beginning, then the past would be infinite, that is, there would be an infinite number of past times. There cannot, however, be an infinite number of anything, and so the past cannot be infinite, and so the universe must have had a beginning, which we know as the phenomenon of the Big Bang.

Question: why do we say that an actual infinite is not realistically possible when concepts of a potential infinite exist? Proposition: Hilbert's Hotel. Hilbert’s Hotel is a hypothetical hotel with an infinite number of rooms, each of which is occupied by a guest. As there are an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests, every room is occupied; the hotel cannot accommodate another guest. However, if a new guest arrives, then it is possible to free up a room for them by moving the guest in room no. 1 to room no. 2, and the guest in room no. 2 to room no. 3, so on. As for every room 'n' there is a room 'n + 1,' therefore, every guest can be moved into a different room, thus leaving room no. 1 vacant. The new guest can, then, be accommodated after all. This is clearly paradoxical; it is not possible that a hotel both can and cannot accommodate a new guest. Hilbert’s Hotel, therefore, is not possible.

Question: What if the scenario was applied to the concept of the past? Can we realistically have an infinite past? Answer: If there exists an infinite past and we were to assign a number to each moment in time of the past then every positive integer would be assigned to some moment. There would therefore be no unassigned number to be assigned to the present moment as it passes into the past. However, by reassigning the numbers and shifting them as such that moment no. 1 becomes moment no. 2, and moment no. 2 becomes moment no. 3, so on and so forth, we could free up moment number one to be assigned to the present. If the past is infinite, therefore, then there both is and is not a free number to be assigned to the present as it passes into the past.

That such a paradox results from the assumption that the past is infinite, it is claimed, demonstrates that it is not possible that that assumption is correct. The past, it seems, cannot be infinite, because it is not possible that there be an infinite number of past moments. If the past cannot be infinite, then the universe must have had a beginning. Once again, this we know as the Big Bang.

Another proposition to the unrealistic nature of an infinity is that it is virtually impossible to reach an infinite number mathematically by adding on to an already existing number. If one begins with a number, and repeatedly adds one to it, one will never arrive at infinity. If one has a heap of sand, and repeatedly adds more sand to it, the heap will never become infinitely large. Taking something finite and repeatedly adding finite quantities to it will never make it infinite. Actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition.

The past has been created by successive addition. The past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present and then into the past. Every moment that is now past was once in the future, but was added to the past by the passage of time.

If actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and the universe must therefore have had a beginning.

Finally, we have the concept that actual infinites cannot be traversed.

If I were to set out on a journey to an infinitely distant point in space, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been walking for, a part of the journey would still remain. I would never arrive at my destination. Infinite space cannot be traversed.

Similarly, if I were to start counting to infinity, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been counting for, I would still only have counted to a finite number. It is impossible to traverse the infinite set of numbers between zero and infinity.

This also applies to the past. If the past were infinite, then it would not just take a long time to the present to arrive; rather, the present would never arrive. No matter how much time had passed, we would still be working through the infinite past. It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time.

Clearly, though, the present has arrived, the past has been traversed.

The past, therefore, cannot be infinite, but must rather be finite.

The universe has a beginning.

The evident conclusion, therefore, is this: the universe, that is, all of space, matter and time, the past, the present and the future, everything, had a beginning. Mathematically and physically speaking, the universe is finite. And this does not only hold true for our universe but for any number of universes besides this one wherein we exist that all of them is finite and not endless. Thus, even the multiverse hypothesis fails to escape the result of this conclusion.

If all of space-time started from a united compact singularity of particles, smaller than an atom, even that could not have existed forever because its very constituents are finite and finite constituents cannot compose an infinite entity. Therefore, nothing within our immediate universe is truly infinite.

And since this very particle expanding to formulate the current universe itself is finite, it must have had a beginning and there must have been something to cause it to begin. This primal cause for the beginning of every particle must, on the other hand, be infinite and eternal or else it would, too, need a cause for its own existence and that would initiate a sequence of infinite regress. There has to be something at the very beginning of everything, therefore, that transcends the need for a cause and thus be eternal. The primal cause, hence, must be an entity of infinite actuality.

Also, as consequence of what we have established earlier, this entity has to exist outside our universe and outside the boundaries of time and space as we experience it within this realm because, as the three propositions prove above, an actual infinity within the boundaries of our time and space is impossible. Time itself is built on event progression, each moment chained to another constructing a train of events moving forward towards an end. Like the numbers of the addition or the sands of the heap, these events are finite and the sum total of the events, too, are finite.

Space, also, is constituted of particles which are finite with a beginning and an end. Overall, the entirety of our universe is limited and cannot allow for an actual infinity to exist within its bounds. Therefore, for an entity of pure infinity to exist, one that is eternal with endless power and capability, the entity must exist outside the boundaries of time and space to be limitless and unbound. And thus, this entity is quite evidently transcendent beyond physicality.

This entity in proposition is God. And the premises presented above explain His Attributes in the sense that He is Infinite, He is Omnipotent and He is Eternal. He is Transcendent, beyond the boundaries of time and space and thus He has no physical body because in order to have a body, even if it was not like that of His creation, a physical body would still need to be constituted of substance meaning God would thus occupy space since all substance, composed of matter, regardless of properties, occupies space, thus limiting God to the existence of space, meaning He could not exist before the creation of space nor the matter that constructs the frame of His body which consequently also means that God would require the creation of this matter first for existence thus obstructing His Eternal Nature.

And since we have already discussed that anything within the physical reality of our universe cannot truly be infinite, this would mean that God is not an actual infinite and His capabilities are, therefore, not limitless and unbound, His existence and nature, thus, not eternal. This would severely compromise the ontological property of God and reduce Him from the primal cause into an entity caused as well as the rest of His creation which does not quite solve the problem of the genesis of the cosmos nor explain the existence of God but rather create another issue all by itself.

In other words, a physical, literal body would mean, by definition of the word "physical," a body that is bound by the laws of physics, a body that is corporeal and, therefore, limited. Anthropomorphic theologians may try to avert this possibility by claiming God to have a body unlike that of His creation but that really does not solve anything because a deer possesses a body unlike that of a gazelle and a gazelle possesses a body unlike that of a blackbuck but, speaking in general terms, having a body unlike that of another does not mean the body is not a body. A literal body is still corporeal regardless of its likeness to another body of another species or person and a corporeal body is, by definition, composed of substance and matter. Therefore, a literal body is bound by space-time. This is problematic.

A god who is bound by the space-time fabric cannot be the creator of space and time; such a scenario would be as asinine and ludicrous as a daughter giving birth to her own mother, and would be no less preposterous as the universe basically creating itself and coming into existence. We cannot attribute such a phenomenon to God and claim it to be the rationale for His Existence. This is the fundamental flaw of a creed of an anthropomorphic, physical deity.

The God of the primal cause, therefore, cannot be a deity with a literal body. He must be transcendent. And He must also be beyond any attribution of direction, that is, He cannot exist anywhere above or below, in the right or the left, the north or the south, east or west of His creation. Directions exist in reference to the plane of space, that is, they are spatial constructs, as are length, height and weight.

There would be no weight if there were no object bearing mass and there would be no height, breadth or length if there were no object possessing dimensions to be measured using arbitrary units for the calibration of these sorts of dimensions comprehensible by the human mind. Similarly, direction is also a mechanical construct to pinpoint spatial location for guidance and homing. Without space, there would be no direction, and beyond space, there would be no such concept either. Since God exists beyond and before the creation of space, He cannot be attributed any direction.

Stating that God is physically above us would mean that He exists in a plane above ourselves meaning that He exists within a spatial construct of His Own leading to the problem, once again, of limiting God to the fabric of space-time. Where was He, then, before this fabric of space was created? Is this spatial plane eternal and infinite? How is it so?
If this space existed eternally with God then no-one created it meaning God is not the Creator of this space.
This space, therefore, is beyond His Dominion limiting, then, His Sovereignty.

We cannot have a God stated to be the Creator of the space-time fabric existing within spatial-time constructs. Therefore, we cannot say God exists literally above us in the spatial fabric similarly as we cannot say that God came to exist in the year 4,000,000 BC. These are measurements to calibrate space and time which did not exist before the creation of space and time, therefore, they do not apply to an entity existing infinitely before time and space.

It is for this very reason that we cannot say God literally descends from His Abode at a certain time of the day or night, that would mean that, for example, God exists 3,000 feet above Earth at 12 midnight and then later climbs down to an altitude of 1,000 feet above Earth at 3 am late-night. This means God is existing within time, His position in relation to Earth changing as the hours on the clock tick away. Such an entity, bound by spatial directional relatives and time cannot be infinite nor eternal, and it is, therefore, utter blasphemy to state such claims to be literal.

This also goes in relation to any of His Acts and Attributes in the sense that saying God is now Merciful or Forgiving while He was not so last year, etc. is equally blasphemous because that is evidently saying God changes in relation to time meaning He was of a certain nature at one point in time and then another nature in the next. God does not change relative to time. He exists beyond time. This explains the Eternal Nature of His Speech too.

God does not speak of an event as it unfolds. For example, if we take the biblical narrative of Moses being told to Muhammad in the Quran, the narrative is not being recorded by God as Moses goes through his life and actions meaning that God did not wait for Moses to arrive at Mount Sinai to speak to him through the Burning Bush and then record the narrative to then narrate it to Muhammad two-thousand years later. Once again, this would mean God exists within time and space. He does not. All those events have eternally happened from the viewpoint of God.

A good way to explain this with an example would be that of a time traveler, D, arriving at a museum around 10 AM in the morning. A security guard in the museum, B, receives a phone call from the same time traveler in the future asking him to move a painting from that museum to another location elsewhere. This evidently has not happened yet in the time traveler's own timeline when he first meets the security guard. It is after traveler D enters the museum, goes through a certain series of events within the next few hours and gets trapped in a predicament around 12 noon forcing him to call the security guard, B, in the past, at 10 AM, in B's timeline that the event happens in D's timeline. However, from the viewpoint of B, that event has already unfolded two hours ago. Time is subjectively relative.

Similarly, let us say God has already spoken to Moses at Mount Sinai and narrated the tale to Muhammad before either of the two were even born. They have yet to experience it happening in their own timeline but it has already happened in the grand picture of eternity. It is their temporal states which forces them to live through their lives until the point of that event happening in their own respective timelines. Such is the Eternal Nature of God's Speech.

In other words, everything that has happened and is ever going to happen, God has already witnessed. He is in the past, present and future all at once which is why He is aware of all our actions and deeds, what will unfold now, tomorrow and in the End of Days, these are events we have initiated to pass by our own free will but God allowed it.

He has seen everything that will happen and He has thus informed of it to His Prophets and Messengers who relayed the Message to us. These matters that we have been foretold of are not to be blamed upon God as they are of our own doing. God has simply willed our desires to happen manifest, witnessed it and warned us of it so that we know.

Since we have established the existence of God via exposition of the primal cause, it should do well to explain why certain trends within human culture to commune with God seem to overlap with one another. If this God is Eternal and He is Conscious then He must have caused the universe to be created for a reason and He must have conveyed that reason unto His creations throughout history. We must therefore experience that communication in our own timelines as we journey through our lives and understand the nature of reality better moving forward.

Thus, it would be quite natural to see similarities in the practices and beliefs of many faiths throughout the globe as faith and religion are the routes utilized to commune with God, therefore, when God communes with Man, the same methods of communication arise repetitively, though, in time, they are corrupted and changed but the skeletal remnants are left behind as relics and bridges between the belief systems of the many tribes and nations.

This is why there are so many similarities between beliefs and theologies throughout history and culture such as the obvious existence of an Almighty Creator God, an antithetical adversary in the form of the Devil or Angra Mainyu, Prophets and Avatars, the story of Noah and Manu, an End Times messianic figure, Judgement Day, Heaven/Hell, the Bridge or the Sirat to the Final Destination of the Soul, concept of Spirits and Afterlife, ritualistic prayer services throughout the day as seen in Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Islam, a Day of Divine Remembrance in the form of the Judaic Sabbath and Islamic Jummah, among many other examples of overlaps between religions existing globally across time. These are the ties that bind us together as humanity. These are the Echoes of God.

The very reason we cannot have a corporeal primal cause is also the reason that we cannot have multiple gods or elemental ones tied to natural phenomena and abstract mortal concepts such as death. This is because for there to be an eternal god of water the existence of the element water would have to be eternal and, similarly, for there to be an eternal god of fire the existence of the element fire would have to be eternal. We know neither is eternal.

Akin to that, the concept of death would also be non-existent in a world without anything to die so death could not have existed without life and thus the concept of death is also not eternal but an aftermath of the creation of life. Therefore, there can be no eternal god of death. These can, obviously, be extrapolated for any other polytheistic conceptual or elemental god. Without their reigning concepts or elements, they would simply be gods of nothing.

A pantheistic god also poses the same dilemma in the sense that a pantheistic god is basically everything in creation meaning that the pantheistic god came into being when creation came about and not before it. Thus, the universe itself is god and the universe, therefore, created itself and then, when the universe ends, god shall end, as it came to exist when the universe came to exist. Such a god is, by definition, limited and reliant upon the finite nature of the universe and not an eternal primal cause of it, as proposed by the cosmological argument, and has no need to exist.

An Eternal God, therefore, would simply have to be, He has to exist simply because to exist is His basal nature. He is not the god of something but rather something, anything, any concept or any element, is that which He creates by nature of His Creative Act, which, is immeasurable because anything being created from infinity is not measurable from the point of infinity to its creation. This means, we can say that the universe was created 13.8 billion years ago from today but we cannot say it was created, for example, 15 billion years after infinity. Time cannot be measured from an infinite. Time is a finite concept. Finite concepts cannot be measured from an infinite starting point.

In order to explain the aforementioned statements, let us say that I started a journey from infinity to get to a given point C. I cannot say I have a walked from infinity to point C. If my initial destination is an infinite distance away from point C, I would never get to point C since the distance is infinite and shall never end. Similarly, if the universe was created 15 billion years after infinity then that would mean the span of time between the beginning of the creation of the universe and the moment before it is infinite and thus impossible to traverse. This mathematical conundrum has already been discussed far above. Infinity cannot be traversed and arbitrated using a finite set of numbers.

This is why we cannot say when God started to create the universe. We can say it came to be 13.8 billion years ago. "When" is not a concept that can be used to describe God nor His Actions and Attributes, Similarly, "where" is also not a concept that can be used to describe God and His Actions and Attributes. God only and simply exists without a "when" or a "where" for He is Infinitely Eternal. He is Omnipotent. He is Immanent. He is Almighty. He is Forever.

— Promi

Creed of the Ahlus-Sunnah w'al-Jama'ah

The word for creed in Arabic is ‘aqidah. Linguistically, it means to bind a knot firmly and tightly. And in the terminology of the sciences, it is a belief held strongly and with conviction in the hearts of humans, whether it be true or false. This strong belief is a motivator to action, such as is the case with the belief of a Muslim in the absolute necessary existence of Allah subhana wa ta'ala and the veracity of the Prophet sallallahu wa alayhisalam.

History attests to the fact that all peoples at all times have had an ideology or religious creed to which they assent, which moves them to action and which has an impact on their behavior and conduct. The Islamic creed consists of a firm belief that Allah, Lord of the Worlds, is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth; that there is only one Allah Who can be characterized by all perfections, Who Transcends all deficiencies, and Who is unlike any other being; that Muhammad is His Prophet and Messenger to the Worlds, and that he fulfilled this mission in the most perfect and complete manner; that the Qur’an is His Book, truthful and untouched by any falsity; and that what it conveys of matters unseen – for example, Angels, other Prophets, Paradise, and Hell – is all true.

The Messenger believeth in what hath been Revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His Messengers: "We make no distinction between one and another of His Messengers." And they say: "We hear and we obey; We seek Thy Forgiveness, Our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys." 

On no soul doth Allah place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns and it suffers every ill that it earns. Pray: "Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget or fall into error; our Lord! Lay not on us a burden like that which Thou didst lay on those before us; Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Blot out our sins and grant us Forgiveness, and have Mercy on us, Thou art our Protector; Help us against those who stand against faith."
[Quran 2:285-286]

This set of beliefs moves he who possesses them to hold fast to the rules of the shari’ah and the commands and prohibitions of the Qur’an and the sunnah.

The first tenet of belief is the belief in tawhid, that is, to believe in the Oneness of Allah, worshiping Him alone, and affirming this belief of His Essence, His Qualities and His Actions. It is also to affirm that there is no entity which resembles His Indivisible Essence; that there are no qualities which resemble the Divine Qualities, in which plurality is not possible such that one can say Allah has two Wills or two independent sets of Knowledge, for example; and that His Actions do not admit of any association – there is, that is to say, no action other than His, and any action of another is to be regarded as acquisitive, kasb.

What has been said by the theologians with regards to monotheism can be simplified as follows: It is the belief that Allah is other than anything that can be conceived by the imagination; it is the belief that His Essence in no way resembles other entities, nor does It compromise His Qualities; tawhid is, in fact, a developed science derived from certain and definitive proofs since it enables one to establish religious beliefs via argumentation and repelling doubts; and it is concerned with the Essence of Allah, and what is necessary, impossible, or permissible to affirm of It. It is also concerned with the Messengers, what they brought affirming the existence of a Creator. Finally, it treats Revelatory Data, and the necessity to believe in it.

The benefit of the science of tawhid is that it leads to knowledge of Allah through definitive proofs, and the attainment of eternal happiness as a result. Because it is connected to the knowledge of Allah and His Prophets, it is the most noble of sciences. As the Arabic saying goes: Things are ennobled by that which they are connected to.

Learning this science is an individual obligation for every person, male or female, as established by the verse which directs all to:

Know, therefore, that there is no god but Allah... [Quran 47:19]

Technically, the obligation is to know the creed in a general way, i.e. it is wajib 'ayni; while a knowledge of the particulars and details is a communal obligation, i.e. it is wajib kifa'i.

The science of tawhid discusses three matters:

1. Divinity – that which has to do with Allah,
2. Prophecy – that which has to do with Prophets and Messengers, and,
3. Revelation – that which treats matters which cannot be proven except through revelatory reports.

Regarding proofs, these are of two types: purely rational, such as that which establishes the Existence of a Creator through the Creation of the Heavens, the Earth and ourselves; and the Revelatory, which is in fact a combination of rational and revelatory premises, because the veracity of a report can be established only by reason. These proofs may establish definitive certainty in shari’ah matters when they are mass-transmitted or accompanied by empirical evidence. However, in cases where they do not accord with a reason-based proof, the latter is given priority, for to disregard reason would be to disregard both types of proofs since the latter is a hybrid.

Let us first look at the argument from epistemology and ontology. The philosophers say that that which may be known are either non-existent, existent in the mind, or existent in the world. And that which has extra-mental, worldly existence is either necessarily existent, i.e. it is impossible that it not exist, or it is contingently existent.

The theologians say that the existent is that which has a reality in the world, and it is either Eternal or it is Created. The Created is further divided into two: the Substance and the Accident. The contingent, al-mumkin, is that which is necessarily in need of a cause. It may be either existent or non-existent, in equal probability. The contingent is always Created, never Eternal.

The Essentially Necessary is Allah, Who is Simple, not compound. This is because to be compound means to be contingent, created and admitting divisibility. This also means He does not admit association because that would entail being compound. Allah transcends all and every similitude. His Qualities include Life, Knowledge, and Power. These Qualities are Eternal, and do not compromise His Necessity of Being, nor do they render Him needy of anything, for His Qualities are not other than Him.

To be created means to be preceded by non-existence. The world is everything other than Allah the Exalted. The world is made of substances and accidents. Substances are entities that are independent of place. Accidents are qualities that are connected to substance, such as color, taste, smell, life, death, will, power, and knowledge.

The Createdness of the World is proven as follows: All of existence can be classified as either Eternal or Created. The Eternal is that which is preceded by nothing else. It is necessary of existence. It is impossible for the eternal to not be, for eternality contradicts non-existence. The Created is that existent which is preceded by another. It may both exist and not exist. So, when it is distinguished by existence rather than non-existence, it is in need of something that performs that distinguishing for it. This Entity is a Creator characterized by Volition and Power.

All that is not void of created entities is Created. Nobody in the world is void of Created accidents and changeable states. The qualities of the bodies change, and they move from one state to another. The reality of changeable entities is that in fact one state is annihilated and another is created. This is known in the case of the new state by observation, and in the case of the old state because, if it were eternal it would not have become non-existent.

Therefore, it is necessary to believe firmly that the world, all its bodies, including all sorts of vegetation and animals; all actions; all utterances; and all beliefs are Created. They came to exist after non-existence.

Belief in the Existence of the Creator is the first pillar of Islamic doctrine. All other doctrinal principles are built upon it. And believing in this existence is the only path to attaining a correct understanding of Creation, and the meaning of existence in this world.

The world that we see is contingently existent which means that the mind precludes neither its existence nor non-existence. Therefore, there must be some external cause which made it existent, and distanced it from non-existence. In its default mode, the world and its entities are possible of both states. And the Cause that made it existent and not non-existent is what we call Allah, the Exalted.

Every rational person, through observation, has the ability to know necessarily that Creation came into existence after non-existence, i.e. it was Created. That which is Created is in need of a Creator. An infinite regression of such creators is impossible, as all rational people agree. Infinite regression means that a created entity has a creator, and that creator has its own creator, and on and on with no end. This infinite regression, on whose impossibility all rational people agree, cannot be avoided except by positing an Eternal Creator, Who is in need of no other, Whose Existence needs no Originator. This is Allah, the Necessarily Existent, Who is not a compound being nor multiple. He is One.

If all existences were simply contingent, and none of them were necessary, this set of contingently existent entities – which encompasses all existent entities – would be in need of an Originator. This is because the set is itself contingent, a compound entity made of a set of contingent entities. However, the Necessary of Existence is Independent in His Existence. He does not need any other entity for His Existence. And He is outside of this set. Therefore, He is the Creator.

Contemplating and knowing Allah is an obligation by consensus, whether it is by Revelatory means as the Ash’ariyyah say, or by rational ones as the Mu’taziliyyah say. The primary obligation is to know Allah, and the means to achieving it is speculation so it is also an obligation. However, speculation is not possible without an intent to engage in it. Therefore, the intention is also an obligation, indeed the first obligation. By contemplation it is meant as the tools and methodologies through which knowledge is organized so as to lead from one piece of information to another. Alternatively, it is defined as abstracting the mind away from insignificant matters and orienting it to the objects of reason. When this is done properly, what results is necessary knowledge.

This is an obligation, because in matters of doctrine, following another based on his or her authority is a sin for someone who is capable of engaging in theoretical and rational thought. If he is not capable of this, it is not a sin. Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi says,

"Our companions agree that the masses are believers and knowers of Allah, and they will populate Heaven, as we are informed in reports and as is agreed upon by scholars. For their natural state leads them to Monotheism and belief in the Creator’s Eternality and the Createdness of all else, even if they are unable to articulate this in the terminology of the theologians."

Imam Saifuddin al-Amidhi reported agreement that those who attest to the correct doctrine based on authority are not disbelievers.

The difference of opinion obtains when we turn to the judgement in the Hereafter. In matters of this world, there is no disagreement that we are to judge based on apparent attestations alone. So, he who attests to the doctrine of Islam is to be treated as a Muslim, and not pronounced a disbeliever. So, he may marry other Muslims; he may lead the prayer; his slaughtered meat may be consumed; Muslims may inherit from him, and he from them; and he is to be buried in their cemeteries.

Now let us move on to the subject of belief, Imaan, which is to attest to all that is brought by the Prophets and is known necessarily to be of the religion, both in generalities and particulars, everything brought forth by Muhammad constitutes submission to Allah, Islam, outside of which there is no Salvation. As Allah says in the Qur'an:

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my sacrifice, my life and my death are for Allah, the Lord of the Worlds: No partner hath He: this am I Commanded, and I am the first of those who bow to His Will."
[Quran 6:162-163]

It is necessary that one submit to this, for there is no salvation in the eyes of Allah except by entering into Islam:

Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been Revealed to us and what was Revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets, from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)." If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.
[Quran 3:84-85]

Islam is the Religion of Allah with which all other Messengers had been sent:

Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian, but he was true in faith and submitted his will to and joined not gods with Him. [Quran 3:67]

The formula of testimony is:

I bear witness that there is no god but Allah;
And I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

For one who is capable of uttering it, it is obligatory for the validity of his faith. It may be uttered in a language other than Arabic, though it is better to use the Arabic wording. Simply uttering the words is not sufficient if the speaker does not understand the meaning of what he is reciting.

Articulating the formula of testimony is a condition of one being considered a Muslim in legal matters, such as inheritance, marriage, leading prayer, being eligible for the funeral prayer, burial in Muslim cemeteries, and being subject to the demand to pray and pay the zakat. This is because silent affirmation in one’s heart, though it constitutes belief, is hidden, and we are in need of a visible sign of one’s Islam.

He who attests with his tongue, but not his heart, is a hypocrite. Though he is not a Muslim in the eyes of Allah, he is to be regarded as a Muslim in this world, provided he does not betray any visible indication of his disbelief, such as prostrating to an idol or abusing a copy of the Qur’an.

The rejecter is one who refuses to utter the formula of testimony. He is a disbeliever both in the eyes of Allah and in the consideration of people in this world. An affirmation of the heart is of no consequence. He who is confronted by doubts must seek to dispel them either through rational speculation or by asking someone of knowledge. He who is confronted by temptations should seek refuge in Allah, and say “I believe in Allah and His Messenger.” Concerning the children of Muslims are considered believers, and are to be treated as such in this world even if they never articulate the formula of testimony their whole lives.

Regarding the Nature and Attributes of Allah, there are some things that cannot be affirmed of Allah. In short, He is Transcendent, and free of anything that indicates createdness or deficiency of any sort. Therefore, one may not attribute to Him accidental attributes like taste, color, smell, or pain. Nor is He restricted to directionality. Nor can we ascribe to him adjacency, for He is not bound by area. Neither the Earth nor the Heavens surround Him. He has neither limits nor measure.

Anything that is distinguished by directionality is restricted to a space, and therefore is capable of being joined to substances and separate from them. Anything that admits such a joining and separation with substance is connected to substance, and not void of it. Anything that is not void of substance is created like the substance it is connected to. In contrast, Allah transcends space, and connection to bodies.

We believe that the Creator of the world cannot be restricted by space, nor can He have an end. For a thing may not be so restricted except by something else, nor can he have an endpoint except by imposing a limitation on him by another entity. But the Creator is neither created, nor restricted, nor limited in any way. As Allah says:

Seest thou not that Allah doth Know (all) that is in the Heavens and on Earth? There is not a secret consultation between three, but He makes the fourth among― them nor between five but he is the sixth nor between fewer nor more, but He is with them, wheresoever they be: in the end will He tell them the truth of their conduct, on the Day of Judgment. For Allah has Full Knowledge of all things.
[Quran 58:7]

It is impermissible to attribute to Allah movement or rest, going and coming, being in a place, connectedness and disconnectedness, physical proximity and distance, size, body, form, measure, directions, or sides.

There are the Attributes which Subsist in the Divine Essence. They number seven or eight, the difference in number being due to scholarly disagreement. These attributes are eternal like His Names. If they had been created, this would mean affirming something created of the Divine Essence. It would also mean that Allah was once without them. Finally, it would indicate the need for something to endow the Divine Essence with this quality, which contradicts His Absolute Self-Sufficiency, His lack of need of anything other than Him. These are in contrast to the attributes of action which are not eternal according to the Ash’ariyyah.

The Attributes of the Divine Essence are of neither the essence, nor of other than it. The former is obvious, for it is well known that the Reality of the Essence is not the same as that of its Attributes, otherwise they would be identical. As for the latter, what is meant is that They are not of a separable other. For these Attributes are not separable from the essence, even though Their Reality is not that of the essence itself.

Whoever directs his worship to the Attributes alone has committed disbelief. And whoever connects his worship to the Essence alone has sinned. The correct path is to worship the Divine Essence characterized by Its Attributes.

These Attributes are,

1. Existence: This means the Existence of His Essence, uncaused by any other. It is impossible that He did not Exist. This sort of Perfect Existence is affirmed only of Allah. All others partake in a subordinate mode of existence, both preceded and succeeded by non-existence. This is an Affirmative Attribute, affirmed of the Essence Itself.
2. Eternality: This is a Negative Attribute, which is to say that it negates that which is not worthy of Allah – in this case, createdness, and so previous non-existence. What is meant is the Eternality of the Essence – that It never came into existence. For if It were not Eternal, It would be created, and thus in need of a creator, which creator would itself be in need of a creator. This would regress infinitely. As such, He must be Eternal. We believe that Allah has always been. A report in the Sahih of Imam Muhammad ibn Hibban has it that, "There was Allah, and there was none other than Him."
3. Everlastingness: This is also a Negative Attribute intended to exclude non-existence from His Essence. Just as we may not contemplate a cause for the generation of the Necessary Existent, we may not admit a cause for Its destruction. If we were to admit such a cause, there would be no Necessary Existent. The proof that Allah’s Existence has no end is that It would then not be Eternal, because Eternality contradicts non-existence. The existence of all other creation has both a beginning and end, except for Paradise and Hell, which had a beginning but no end. We know this through revelation and not reason.
4. Absolute Uniqueness: This is also a Negative Attribute indicating a lack of resemblance between Allah and Creation, for He is neither a body nor an accident, neither a universal nor a particular. He similarly transcends all states and attributions that, for example, can be said of humans and other entities, such as sleep, heedlessness, hunger, thirst, and need. The proof of this Attribute is that if Allah were not opposed to all created things in all qualities, He would resemble them in their createdness, or they would resemble Him in His Eternality. That is impossible.
   We believe that Allah cannot be characterized by those qualities which characterize creation. These latter are the essence of createdness, such as being restricted to a place or time, having bodily or mental needs, or weakness or incapacity. Allah is completely Transcendent. Nothing even remotely resembles him. He has neither ancestors nor descendants. Nor does he have friends and enemies in the manner commonly spoken of, though we may use these words to mean sincere devotees, on the one hand, and those who transgress his commands, on the other.
   However, it is true that we may describe humanity by some qualities we attribute to Allah, such as Knowledge, Power, Will, and Perception. However, we distinguish by stating that these attributes are Essential Attributes of Allah, but not essential attributes of humans. In the case of the latter, they are bestowed unto us as Blessings.
5. Subsistence in Himself: This means that He has no need for any other. We believe that Allah subsists in Himself. He has no need for an entity to generate Him, nor for a space to encompass him. He has been Allah since before the generation of anything else, and before the generation of time and space itself. Nor does He have directionality, though some anthropomorphists have said that He is characterized by "aboveness." This is invalid. As Qadhi 'Iyadh has said, "There is no disagreement among the Muslim jurists, ahadith scholars, theologians, thinkers, and lay people that the apparent meaning of verses that mention Allah being in the Heavens, such as ‘Do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the Earth when it trembles?’ are not to be taken literally, but rather are to be interpreted."
6. Oneness: This is also a Negative Attribute in that it denies something that is not appropriate to Attribute to Allah, that is, multiplicity or quantity. Allah is neither composed of parts, nor made up of particulars subsumed under a Universal. He does not have two sets of Knowledge or two Wills that complement one another, nor does He have a Knowledge or Will that partakes in the knowledge or will of others.
7. Power: This is an Eternal Attribute of the Divine Essence through which all things come to be and come to an end in accordance with His Will. What is necessary for every Muslim to know and believe is that Allah is capable of all things. The proof that Allah is characterized by power is that if He were not Omnipotent, He would be characterized by incapacity. This is impossible.
8. Will: This is also an Eternal Attribute of the Divine Essence which has to do with realizing some of the potentialities of contingent beings. Allah’s Will is One. It originates and annihilates some things.

There are also other attributes. These include Knowledge, Life, Speech, Hearing, and Sight.

Regarding the Beautiful Names of Allah, He Himself says:

The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call on Him by them...
[Quran 8:180]

The Names of Allah are Eternal like His Essential Attributes. This Eternality is taken to mean that either that they were suitable of Allah from pre-eternality, or that they always indicated the meaning of those names. Some like Sheikh ibn ‘Arabi took them to be equal in that they all pertain to One Essence, Allah, even though they may differ in the world. Others took them to be of varying degrees of importance.

"Allah" is itself the Greatest Name, above all others. Ninety-nine of these Names have been enumerated in a hadith in Imam at-Tirmidhi’s book on the authority of Hazrat Abu Hurairah, but Imam an-Nawawi has said that the scholars have agreed the Names and Attributes that are listed there do not exhaust the Names and Attributes of Allah. The position of the Ahlus Sunnah w'al Jama'ah is that His Names and Attributes are taught to us, for this is what indicates Allah’s Permission. This may take the form of either being in the Qur’an and sunnah, or it may be established by consensus of prevalent use, such as the Existent, the Necessary and the Eternal.

Now let us turn towards the subject of Prophecy. In Arabic, the word "prophet," "nabi," is taken from the word for "news" or "report," for the Prophet reports about Allah. The Prophet is also the one who is reported to, in the first instance, since Gabriel brings him news.

Terminologically, the word "prophet" refers to a pure human who is inspired by a Revelatory Code of Conduct on which he himself acts, even though he may not be called on to propagate it. If he is in fact called upon to propagate, he is a "messenger" or "rasul."  All Messengers are Prophets, but not all Prophets are Messengers.

The Sending of Messengers is a Great Bounty from our Lord because the phenomenon is a rational possibility, but He is under no obligation to send Messengers.

Allah has named twenty-five Prophets in the Qur’an. Their Prophethood must be believed in. It is not permissible for a Muslim to be ignorant of them. There are yet others not mentioned by name or in detail in the Qur’an. We know of them only generally, and so must believe in them in that general manner. That is to say, we must believe that Allah sent many Prophets and Messengers to every nation and group in a variety of places and times. It is ignorant to think that Allah specified only the Arabian peninsula and its surrounding areas for Prophecy.

There are five necessary requirements for Prophethood:

1. Prophets only arise among humans, not among jinn or angels.
2. Prophets must be characterized by trustworthiness and honesty, and innocence from sin.
   This is so that their testimony may be believed, and held to a high standard.
3. Prophets must be characterized by a perfect rationality, precision, and uprightness.
4. Prophets must have propagated to the people everything they had been ordered to propagate.
5. Prophets must have not concealed anything.

There is disagreement on whether a prophet must be male. Those who said he must be a male rely on the verse:

Before thee, also the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted Inspiration: if ye know this not, ask of those who possess the Message. [Quran 21:7]

Those who say it is not a condition that a prophet must be a male point to verses which say that the mother of Moses was inspired as well:

"So We sent this Inspiration to the mother of Moses…" [Quran 28:7]

And that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was listed in a context where many other Prophets were listed:

Those were some of the Prophets on whom Allah did bestow His Grace ― of the posterity of Adam, and of those whom We carried in the Ark with Noah, and of the posterity of Abraham and Israel ― of those whom We Guided and Chose...
[Quran 19:58]

The greatest of Prophets is the Final Prophet, Muhammad. Muslims are duty bound to love him, as we learn from numerous of ahadith.

Regarding miracles, these are the Actions of Allah in which the conventional laws of nature are broken at the hands of His Messengers so that the Messenger’s truthfulness and the veracity of his Message may be affirmed. It may be speech, like the Qur’an, or an action, such as the gushing forth of water between Muhammad's fingers, or an absence, such as the inability of the fire to burn Abraham.

The conditions for a miracle are that it be from Allah Himself, it be a breaking of the conventional laws of nature, it be inexplicable, it be at the hands of someone who claims prophecy so that his Prophethood may be established, it be in accordance with what is being claimed and what is claimed not be disproven by the miracle itself, and it not precede the claim but be made in conjunction with it.

Therefore, Prophet Jesus’ speech in his infancy, wet dates falling on Lady Mary from a dry palm tree, cutting the chest of Prophet Muhammad and washing his heart, clouds forming a shadow over him to protect him from the sun along with the peace greetings that he used to hear from stones before his prophecy are considered miracles.

The Prophet's greatest miracle was the Qur’an itself. He also had material sensible miracles, such as the splitting of the moon, the greetings offered to him by stones, trees speaking to him, the gushing forth of water between his fingers, and others.

It is obligatory for a Muslim to believe firmly that there is no Cause in the world other than Allah, and that all the apparent causes we see in the world of phenomena are deputized by Allah Himself. There is however no harm in using language that indicates causality of things other than Allah if one's beliefs are sound on this matter. For example, one might say, "This medicine was of benefit to me," or "This doctor cured me," or "The rain this year caused there to be a good crop" without any harm of falling into disbelief.

This is why there is no harm in a Muslim seeking intercession with Allah via the Relics of Prophets, as long as he believes that the only Cause is Allah. This fits with the language used with respect to the apparent causality of the world. The most obvious instance of such is the Qur’anic verse:

We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures. [Quran 21:107]

If Allah has said of the Prophet that he is the cause of mercy to His servants, there is no harm in invoking this honor He has granted the Prophet.

There is also no difference between invoking him during his life and after his death. This is because his bodily life was never the reason for invoking him in this manner, such that we may say this is no longer possible.

Regarding belief in Revelation, the word used for this, sam’iyyat, refers to all that which can be known only through reports that partake in certainty. One may not be a believer in Allah in his heart, mind and soul without believing in both the seen and the unseen. The unseen we believe in is that which is not visible, which may not be perceived purely through rationality.

Believing in the unseen is the first pillar of piety. This means believing in

1. Allah,
2. the Reality of the Angels of Allah,
3. the Authority of the Divine Scriptures inspired by Allah
4. the Messengers of Allah,
5. the Reality of the Last Day and that it will undoubtedly come,
6. Fate, good or bad, and that there is nothing in the world except it was willed by Allah.

Believing in the unseen includes also believing in the existence of the Jinn whose existence is proven by definitive texts. Allah says in the Qur’an,

And He created the jinn from smokeless fire. [Quran 55:15]

So the jinn are created from fire and are asked to worship Allah Almighty and follow the Prophets and Messengers as Allah says:

I have only created the Jinn and Man so that they may serve Me. [Quran 51:56]

Also the jinn are divided into believers and disbelievers recorded in the Quran,

"Amongst us are some that submit their wills to Allah and some that swerve from justice."
Now those who submit their wills― they have sought out the Path of Righteousness.
[Quran 72:14]

Satan is one of the jinn but was expelled away from Allah’s Mercy and earned Allah’s Wrath on himself because of his disobedience towards Allah’s Direct Command to prostrate to Adam as was narrated in the Qur’an:

Behold! We said to the angels "Bow down to Adam": they bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the jinn, and he broke the Command of his Lord… [Quran 18:50]

Allah’s Eternal Wrath on Satan deems him to enter Hellfire but his Punishment is postponed until Judgment Day where he will be sentenced to excruciating pain along with those who were seduced by Satan and followed his path of evil. The jinn are inhabitants of Earth and are able to see humans unlike humans who are unable to see jinn as Allah explained in the Qur’an saying:

… for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them... [Quran 7:27]

Regarding the Throne, we believe it is the greatest of creation, and it is where Allah will present Himself on the Judgment Day. This Throne will be carried by eight angels on that Day but we are unable to attribute any sort of a defined or detailed description of this Throne due to a lack of knowledge about it.

We also believe in the Divine Footstool but similarly we have no available data describing it. What we know for sure though is that neither the Throne nor the Footstool are dwellings of Allah. In other words, Allah did not create the Throne out of need for elevation or superiority and did not create the Footstool out of a need for sitting down.

We also believe in the Divine Tablets, al-Lawh al-Mahfuz, and this is the first of creation. It is preserved well within the Bayt al-Ma'mur directly underneath the Divine Throne. Its length is of one-hundred years. Before creating anything else Allah ordered the Pen, the second creation of all, to write. It asked what it was to write. It was told,
“All that is going to be.”

Akin to the Throne and the Divine Footstool, the same goes for creating the Pen; it was not created for writing previously unknown knowledge nor angels asked to record the deeds of humans out of fear of forgetfulness.

Regarding belief in Paradise and Hell, these are two created entities, the first an Eternal Abode of Reward, and the latter an Eternal abode of Punishment and Fire, of levels and each person will occupy the level in accordance with his deeds. Some people might assume that the Eternality of Heaven and Hell comes in opposition to Allah’s saying in the Qur’an:

…everything will perish except His Own Face. To Him Belongs the Command, and to Him will ye all be brought back. [Quran 28:88]

But the correct interpretation of this verse is that everything in its own right amounts to nothingness because of its inability of independent self existence.

We also believe in the Reservoir from which the Prophet will serve the believers of his nation in the hereafter and we believe that whoever drinks from it shall never be subjected to thirst.

Regarding the Hour and its signs we believe there are some obvious signs like the appearance of Gog and Magog, the Emergence of the Beast, the rising of the sun from the west and the appearance of smoke. These Signs, specially the ones that are backed by definitive proofs from the Qur’an, are absolute tenets of belief and whoever denies their veracity is deemed to be a liar and a disbeliever. These Signs are part of Revelation which the mind does not have much say in as they are believed in through revelatory reports. For example, Allah says in the Qur’an:

Until the People of Gog and Magog are let through, and they swiftly swarm from every hill.
[Quran 21:96]

The questioning in the grave is authenticated by numerous prophetic reports. It is believed that the soul returns back to the body with all its five senses intact and its intellectual ability persevered to be questioned in the grave and receives its due punishment or enjoy its grace. After the burial of the dead and the dismissal of people attending his or her funeral, two angels called Munkar and Nakir are responsible for asking the deceased three questions in the language that is understood by the deceased.

The angels ask the dead about the two parts of the testimony of faith namely the Oneness of Allah and the Prophethood of Muhammad. Prophets and Saints are exempted from these questions as well as Martyrs who died for the Sake of Allah along with children because they were not eligible to understand Commands and Prohibitions ordained by Allah.

Allah Almighty has the Power to gather back the scattered particles and atoms of the body resided in a grave or spread in a desert or kept in the belly of an animal and form the human body again to be asked about his or her life on Earth. The scholars of the Ash’ariyyah theology reached a consensus that both the body and the soul combined either suffer from the ailments or enjoy the grace in the grave.

The return of the body to the spirit on the Day of Judgment is believed in as all the particles of the body is gathered again to return it to its original state to form the full human body. Allah Almighty possesses the Ability to reorganize these particles because of His Unlimited Power and Divine Knowledge.

We also believe in the Resurrection of the dead and taking them out of their graves for the Reckoning. In this day all human beings, jinn,and angels shall be resurrected along with beasts and animals.

Regarding the belief in Intercession of the Prophet on this day, it is obligatory and this noble status of wasilah is the supplication or prayer which the Prophet saved for his people until Doomsday. The meaning of intercession entails forgiveness for whoever attested to the Oneness of Allah and the Prophecy of Muhammad even if this person committed the gravest of sins.

All the other prophets also have the Right of Intercession in the Day of Judgement along with the angels, the gnostics and the martyrs. The first intercessor among all these is Prophet Muhammad. As for the intercession of others, it occurs only after reckoning and punishment over small and grave sins which were not forgiven by Allah. The importance of intercession lies in honoring the intercessor in this day and showing his great position in the sight of Allah. Therefore, the Forgiveness of sins other than polytheism is possible both through logic and revelation as intercession deems forgiveness possible. As for polytheism, it is deemed impossible through Revelation for a polytheist to be forgiven.

The Ash’ariyyah creed refuses to make a judgement of disbelief on any sinful believer in this world and it is similarly impermissible to pass a verdict of his or her eternal stay in Hellfire for sins whether minor or major. The correct approach is to delegate the whole issue to Allah.

Regarding the belief in the crossing of the Path that stretches over Hell, all will have to pass over it as a test and among the passers are the prophets, the gnostics and those who enter paradise without previous subjection to reckoning and judgement over their deeds. The description of the path is that it is thinner than a hair and sharper than a blade. Whoever is deemed to enter Paradise will succeed in crossing his way over to Heaven and whoever is deemed to enter Hell will fall over the bridge straight down to Hell.



— Mufti 'Ali Goma'ah, transmitted via Sidi Terence Helikaon Nunis of A Muslim Convert Once More