On the Self-Evidence of the Knowledge of God

On the Self-Evidence of the Knowledge of God

Bibliographic Information

• Main Entry: Nekounam, Mohammad Reza (1327–)
• Title and Creator: On the Self-Evidence of the Knowledge of God / Nekounam.
• Publisher: Tehran: Sobhe Farda Publications, 1393.
• Physical Details: 48 pages.
• ISBN: 978-600-6435-11-4
• Catalogue Status: FIPA
• Previous Edition: Zohour Shafaq, 1386.
• Edition: Second Edition.
• Subject: God – Proof of Existence, Theology, Mysticism.
• Dewey Classification: 297/42
• National Bibliography Number: 3686722

Introduction

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings upon Muhammad and his pure family, and eternal curse upon their enemies.

Is the existence of God self-evident? The question of the existence of God and His nature has preoccupied the human mind throughout history, with some attempting to prove it, while others have denied it. Why do the deniers tend to reject the existence of God?

This paper argues that the self-evidence of God at the level of confirmation reveals that the problem of the deniers, and indeed those who struggle with belief, certainty, and faith in God, lies in their incorrect conception of God. The paper aims to elucidate this issue.

Furthermore, this work includes three additional short notes, each addressing a different topic related to divine matters:

• The second note proves the unity of God through the unity of the universe.
• The article “Mysticism and Knowledge” discusses true mysticism, dividing it into theoretical and practical branches, and critically evaluates the book Maqamat al-Sairin in the realm of practical mysticism, outlining the unique perspectives of the author in this field.
• The final note presents key insights that incorporate elements of wisdom and mysticism, raising two puzzles from the abjad letters of Surah Al-Fatiha and Surah Al-Ikhlas.

And our final prayer is: Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

Proving the Existence of God

What human thought apprehends and understands, and considers as knowledge, can either be self-evident or theoretical.

Theoretical or acquired matters require evidence for their proof, while self-evident matters do not require evidence; their mere conception is sufficient for acceptance.

Evidence, of whatever type, is itself a creation and needs a cause; a created being cannot fulfill or prove its own cause. The Supreme Being is not a theoretical issue that requires proof or argument, because what constitutes evidence and argument are products of creation. Moreover, since the Divine is the prior cause to all things and creations, its self-evidence is beyond doubt.

The existence of God does not require proof; it is a self-evident matter, and its recognition is equal to its discovery. The language of the heart and the inherent nature of humanity testify to it.

If it is asked: If the existence of God is self-evident and one of the most self-evident matters, why is it a subject of disagreement, rejection, acceptance, and contention? — considering that for every self-evident matter, there should be no disagreement, and its truth should be beyond dispute — then one could address this objection in two ways:

1. The existence of God cannot be theoretical, as it depends on created beings, whereas God Himself has no such dependence.
2. But how can it be self-evident if it is the most contentious issue, both scientifically and doctrinally?

Before answering this objection, it is important to clarify a common misconception: Although the proof of God’s existence may require reasoning, the need for proof is ours, not the necessary existence of God. Such a proof does not contradict the inherent necessity of God’s existence; it is merely a need of ours, not of His.

This statement contains a fallacy: Proof, in any instance, precedes the existence itself in that context. If God’s existence were theoretical, proof would precede it in every mental step. The phrase “proof of the existence of God for us” does not alter this principle, as “for us” in this sentence serves as a modifier; the essence of the statement is still the proof of God’s existence, irrespective of who seeks it. Therefore, proof concerning the Divine is necessary for us, but it does not affect the inherent need for proof in God’s independent realm.

In simpler terms, human thought is knowledge, and knowledge is either theoretical or self-evident. All theoretical matters must ultimately lead to self-evidence, or else they do not constitute real knowledge. If anyone denies the self-evidence of a matter, they are essentially denying knowledge itself, which makes them a sophist or a dreamer.

The key issue regarding the self-evidence of God is understanding the concept of conception and affirmation and their characteristics. These matters are linked to proper knowledge and logical methods, which can be briefly explained.

Conception and Affirmation

In any proposition, affirmation requires conception, as the elements of the proposition must be conceived before they can be affirmed. However, conception does not require affirmation. It is impossible to affirm something without first having a proper conception of it.

For example, in affirming that “two plus two equals four,” one must first have a correct conception of “two” and “four,” and then recognize the property of equality in order to understand the statement.

Thus, the science of affirmation always involves the conception of its elements. Based on this, it is said that there is no disagreement in self-evident matters.

Addressing the question, “Why is there disagreement on the existence of God if it is self-evident?” one can argue that those who deny God’s existence lack a proper conception of God, which prevents them from affirming His existence. The issue is not one of disagreement in belief but a lack of accurate conception.

When it is said that God is self-evident, it refers to the affirmation of His existence, which does not require self-evident conceptions. Just as some self-evident matters require more than a basic conception to be affirmed, so too does the recognition of God, even though His affirmation is self-evident.

For instance, the self-evidence of “the samovar is larger than the samovar’s spout” only becomes clear once one has a correct understanding of both the samovar and the spout. Without this understanding, the statement would not be affirmed as self-evident.

This means that while the affirmation of a matter can be self-evident, the conception of it may not always be. For example, the statement “42 = 7 × 6” is self-evident in affirmation but not in conception, as one must reason and memorize it.

Although the affirmation of God’s existence is self-evident, the conception of God is not inherently so, and those who have difficulty affirming God’s existence actually struggle with the correct conception of God. This does not undermine the self-evidence of the affirmation of God’s existence.

In conclusion, while the universe has a cause and a goal, all admissions and denials about God pertain to one’s conceptions of His attributes. Those who deny God might ask, “What is not?” and answer, “God,” but when asked, “What is God?” each person will describe Him differently, based on their conception, not their affirmation.

The Self-Evidence of God in the Qur’an

While many scholars — philosophers, theologians, and mystics — discuss the proof of God’s existence and debate about logical and empirical evidence, the Qur’an does not follow this method. It does not attempt to prove God’s existence because self-evident matters do not require proof.

The Qur’an offers numerous in’i proofs (affirmative arguments) that describe God’s attributes, which serve to correct the conception of Him. The Qur’an does not engage in debates about proving His existence but focuses on clarifying the correct conception of God. This approach is superior to all other intellectual methods.

If a person has the correct conception of God — as the Qur’an portrays it — no problem remains in understanding God. Those who are disbelievers can abandon their denial once they grasp the correct conception of Him.

Therefore, we must focus on correctly understanding the divine attributes. The debate over negation and affirmation is unnecessary for a sound mind, which is why in Islamic teachings, there is emphasis on worship, knowledge, and spiritual practice to help the soul comprehend God and draw closer to Him.

The Groundlessness of the Will of the Heavens

Furthermore, the rational will of the heavens, which itself is unprovable and lacks accompanying evidence, cannot serve as proof for the unity of the Creator. This is because the only argument presented for the will of the heavens is that the movement of the heavens is not natural and thus, its motion is not coercive. Therefore, it is necessary that it should have a voluntary motion, and its will is not derived from a force of wrath, as it does not possess sensual desire. Rather, its will is rational.

In critique of this argument, one may say: even assuming that the movement of the heavens is not natural, why should it be voluntary? Moreover, it could well be natural. If it is argued that the movement of the heavens is natural, then the heavens should move from themselves towards themselves. However, the movement of the heavens is positional, so their motion cannot be considered natural. In response, it may be argued that the heavens are moving towards themselves, as each entity within the heavens is in a singular orbit. Thus, this statement cannot be used to establish an intellectual or sensory aspect for the heavens, which inherently possess multiplicity. Moreover, this necessitates sensory unity, which is neither possible nor feasible.

It should be noted that the invalidity of such concepts in natural sciences presented by philosophers or theologians does not negate the coherence and rigor of other philosophical discussions they present.

Conclusion: Existence itself, through the unity of being, is a complete human being and does not possess extraneous elements. Proving the unity of the Creator does not require proving intellect, soul, or the unity of accidents. Rather, existence is an integrated being of life and spirit.

Mysticism and Knowledge

True mysticism is the attainment of the Divine Presence, and philosophy pursues closeness to this meaning. Philosophy has a descriptive understanding, while mysticism seeks to know the essence. Philosophy speaks of the Truth in a general manner, while mysticism aims to behold the beauty of the Truth and come into direct contact with His presence. Therefore, just as logic is a prerequisite for philosophy, it must be said that philosophy is the logic of mysticism and serves as one of its premises. In terms of hierarchy and significance, mysticism holds a higher place in knowledge and understanding than philosophy.

Theoretical and Practical Mysticism

Mysticism has two essential aspects: theoretical and practical. Theoretical mysticism is the acquisition of knowledge, while practical mysticism is the direct experience of the Truth. Without theoretical mysticism, practical mysticism is not possible, just as without the practical consequences, theoretical mysticism lacks validity and is merely a claim. Just as philosophy and mysticism are like two wings for flight, knowledge and action are also two wings for reaching the Divine Presence.

Books on Mysticism

There are many books on theoretical mysticism, just as there are numerous works on practical mysticism. The presentation of practical mysticism in books has been done in two ways: one describes good and bad deeds, and the other explains the stages and outlines the journey along the path. The Maqamat al-Sa’irin (The Stages of the Wayfarers) belongs to the latter category.

There are other important works in this field, such as Maqamat al-Qulub by Tirmidhi, Qut al-Qulub by Abu Talib Makki, al-Ta’arruf li-Madhhab Ahl al-Tasawwuf by Kalabadi, and Risala Qashiriyya by Abu al-Qasim Qushayri. However, none of them possess the organisation and precision of Maqamat al-Sa’irin by Khwaja Anasari.

The term sa’irin refers to those who are on the mystical path, journeying with knowledge towards the Truth — which is unity with God. The term manazil (stages) refers to the spaces of the journey, much like maqamat (stations) refers to spaces of stability. In some texts, the term maqamat is used, while in others manazil appears. Ibn Arabi, in his Futuhat al-Makkiya, uses the terms manazil, manazalat, and maqamat.

Khwaja Abdullah Anasari, aware of the shortcomings in these works, sought to address the problems and deficiencies by compiling Maqamat al-Sa’irin.

Khwaja Anasari and the Commentator Kashani

Abu Ismail Abdullah bin Muhammad Anasari, a descendant of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, was born in 396 AH. He has written influential and impactful works, among which Maqamat al-Sa’irin has held a special place among those of deep spiritual insight for centuries.

The commentator of this book, Kamal al-Din Abdul Razzaq Kashani, who passed away in 735 AH, was an exceptional scholar combining both rational and traditional knowledge. Kashani, having had the opportunity to engage with many great mystics, has authored significant works, among which his commentary on Maqamat al-Sa’irin has become a standard academic resource in the field of mysticism.

His commentary clarifies the complex and elevated content of the text, explaining the language with scientific precision. He completed this commentary later in his life.

Re-evaluation and Critique of the Commentary on Maqamat al-Sa’irin

The author has been teaching Maqamat al-Sa’irin at the Qom Seminary for many years. In his class, the approach has not been limited to merely teaching and commenting on the words of Khwaja Anasari and Kashani. Rather, three main objectives have been pursued in this context:

Firstly, the words of Khwaja and Kashani are explained and elaborated upon, meaning the core content of the book is taught.

Secondly, the ideas presented in the book are critically examined, and the theological and mystical views presented are corrected. Any mystical shortcomings or deficiencies in the book are addressed, and the author’s own findings are presented in line with the perspectives of these two great figures in a manner befitting the mystic tradition.

Thirdly, a critical insight offered in the lessons frequently highlighted is that the content of Maqamat al-Sa’irin represents the mysticism of the intermediates and lovers, whereas the mysticism of the beloveds and the perfected saints of God represents a different realm altogether. This distinction is sometimes hinted at in the book, but there remains a profound difference between the path of the intermediates and that of the perfected mystics. This difference is articulated to potentially pave the way for a deeper understanding of that high and unspoken truth within scholarly circles.

For instance, this book divides the journey from beginnings to ends (which is unity with God) into ten sections. Each section has ten chapters, and each chapter has three stages, totaling three hundred stages, one hundred chapters, and ten sections. However, in the opinion of the author, the entire path can be summarized in three stages: renunciation of desire for self, renunciation of desire for others, and ultimately, renunciation of desire for God. Thus, mysticism is the destruction of attachment to the non-self, and the cultivation of attachment to the Truth. Knowledge is attained when the desire for anything other than God is eradicated from the seeker.

The saints and beloveds of God do not revolve around desire or become entangled in attachments. Hence, the path of the intermediates is marked by a multiplicity of stages, whereas the path of the beloveds does not require such convoluted steps.

Various Mystical Concepts

1. The Four Elements: The classical four elements are water, earth, air, and fire, but modern science has identified over a hundred elements, and efforts to understand more continue.
2. The Threefold Origins (Mawalid Thalath): These refer to minerals, plants, and animals, which form the foundation of earthly life.
3. The Seven Heavens (Aba’i Sab’a): In ancient thought, the heavens were considered the nine celestial spheres, and philosophers saw them as influencing the elements and the formation of creatures. Some philosophers did not count the higher celestial spheres as part of these heavens, thus defining seven heavens.
4. The Immaterial Soul: The soul is often understood in various ways. Some theologians regard the soul as material or immanent, while others argue for its immaterial, divine nature. There is still ongoing debate about the soul’s true essence.
5. The Nasut (The World of Nature): This refers to the world of material existence, encompassing all physical beings and time, with its characteristic qualities of materiality.
6. The Lahut (The World of the Divine): The Lahut is the world of divine command, beyond the natural world, representing the realm of spiritual truth.
7. Final Cause: The final cause refers to the ultimate purpose or goal towards which an action is directed, embodying the teleological aspect of existence.
8. Heavenly Bodies (Ajram): These are the celestial bodies or cosmic elements like stars, planets, and the matter that makes up the universe.
9. The Demon (Diw): The demon is a mythical being often imagined as a large, monstrous entity with horns, representing the forces of evil. However, its actual existence is denied by many who view it as a conceptual or psychological construct.
10. True Rulers: “Kings are rulers over people, and scholars are rulers over them,” emphasizing that true authority lies in knowledge and wisdom.
11. God’s Sleep: A mystical tale tells that the people of Moses asked him whether God sleeps. The answer came when Moses held a vessel of water, and as sleep overtook him, the vessel fell and broke, revealing that only God is beyond sleep.
12. The Four Major Sunni Madhabs: These refer to the four main Sunni schools of thought—Maliki, Hanbali, Shafi’i, and Hanafi—as well as the Ja’fari school of Shia Islam.
13. The Seizure of the Soul (Qabd-e-Ruh): In Shia belief, the Angel of Death, Azrael, seizes the soul of a person upon death, and likewise, all souls of animals are taken by angels under his command.

A Riddle from the Letters of Surah Al-Fatiha

If one considers a letter from the words of Surah Al-Fatiha, another can deduce that letter using the provided rhyme-based clues.