Imam Al-Qasim’s debate with the an atheist
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
It is said that a man from among the atheists came to Egypt. He used to attend the gatherings of its jurists and theologians, asking them questions typical of atheists. Some of them answered him with weak and clumsy responses, while others rebuked and insulted him. News of this reached al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm, peace be upon him, who was then living secretly in one of the houses in Egypt. He sent for the host of the house to bring that man to him, and he did so.
When the man entered, al-Qāsim — may Allah be pleased with him — said to him:
“It has reached me that you have been confronting our people and questioning those of our creed with your doubts, hoping to ensnare their inexperienced ones in your traps, when you saw the weakness of some of their scholars in standing up with the proofs of God and defending His religion. You have spoken with the tongue of the accursed devil — may Allah curse him — about whom Allah said:
‘I will surely take from among Your servants a fixed portion.’ [al-Nisāʾ 4:118]
The atheist said: “Now that you have criticized and reproached those men for their ignorance, I will question you and put you to the test. If you can answer what they could not, then you are indeed their chief; otherwise, you are just like them.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, replied:
“Ask whatever you wish. Listen well, be fair, and beware of injustice, denial of what is evident, and rejection of what is necessary and rational. I will answer you — seeking help from Allah, relying upon Him. He is sufficient for me, and an excellent Guardian.”
[Proof of the Existence of the Creator and the Createdness of the World]
The atheist then said:
“Tell me — what is the proof for the existence (reality) of the Creator?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“The proof is in His saying — Glorious and Exalted is He:
‘O mankind! If you are in doubt about the Resurrection, then (consider that) We created you from dust, then from a drop of fluid, then from a clinging clot, then from a lump of flesh — formed and unformed — that We may make it clear to you. And We settle in the wombs whom We will for an appointed time, then We bring you forth as infants, then (allow you) to reach your maturity. And among you is he who dies, and among you is he who is brought back to the weakest state of age, so that he knows nothing after having known. And you see the earth lifeless, but when We send down water upon it, it stirs and swells, and brings forth every lovely pair. That is because Allah — He is the Truth, and because He gives life to the dead, and because He has power over all things, and because the Hour is coming — there is no doubt about it — and because Allah will raise those in the graves.’ [al-Ḥajj 22:5–7]
The indication (proof) in this verse lies in the fact that man was once dust, then a drop, then a clot — and these states cannot be free from one of two conditions:
Either they are created (originated), or they are eternal (uncreated).
If they are created, then this is among the clearest proofs of the existence of the Creator, for several reasons:
- Because what is originated (created) must, in reason, depend upon an Originator, just as writing depends on a writer and composition upon a composer. It is impossible, both to sense and to reason, that there be writing without a writer or an effect without a cause.
- Furthermore, what is created is something that did not exist and then came into being. In its coming into being, it cannot be free from one of two possibilities:
- Either it brought itself into being, or
- Something else brought it into being.
If it brought itself into being, this too cannot be without one of two possibilities:
- Either it brought itself into being while it was non-existent, or
- It brought itself into being while it was already existent.
If it brought itself into being while non-existent — that is impossible, for a non-existent thing cannot bring itself into existence while it does not exist.
And if it brought itself into being while already existent — that too is impossible, for its very existence would make it needless of bringing itself into existence again.
Since both are false, it must be that something other than itself brought it into being, and that this bringer is eternal, not created — for if it too were created, the same reasoning would apply to it, and the chain would regress endlessly, which is impossible.
Hence, it is established that the one who brought it into being is other than it, and that He is eternal, uncreated.
And if these states were eternal, that would be impossible — for we see them occurring one after another, in successive moments, within the same being and life. If all these states, despite their differences in nature and in time, were eternal, then the state of being dust, a drop of fluid, a clot of blood, a lump of flesh, bones, and finally a human being — would all coexist at the same moment.
Yet “eternal” means that something has always existed and never ceased to exist.
If the existence of these states had never ceased, then they would all exist simultaneously — as I have just said: the human being would be, at one and the same time, dust, a lump of flesh, bones, and a complete person. But we know by observation that these states do not coexist; rather, each one precedes the other — the state of dust precedes the state of the drop, and the drop precedes what comes after it.
Therefore, since some of these states precede others, they are not eternal; and since they are not eternal, they must be originated (created).
And when their being originated is confirmed, we have already said from the outset that whatever is originated must, by reason, depend upon an Originator (a Creator).
The atheist said:
“What prevents you from admitting that the states (conditions) are created, while the substance itself — the body — is eternal?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“I reject that, because I have never seen the substance (the body) separated from these states at all, nor is it possible for it to be separated from them. Since I have never observed it apart from these states, and since it cannot exist apart from them, its ruling must be the same as that of its states — namely, that it too is originated (created).”
The atheist said:
“And why so?”
Al-Qāsim replied:
“Because if the substance — that is, the body — were eternal, while its states were created, then it would mean that new states are constantly occurring within it. But if you say that they ‘constantly occur,’ you contradict yourself — for your saying ‘constantly’ (without beginning) is the opposite of your saying ‘occur’ (come into being).
And when a statement affirms and denies the same thing at once, it becomes impossible. For if you say that states constantly occur within it, you have made it eternal while also affirming occurrence within it. Then, since the occurrence (the new state) does not precede it, the occurrence itself becomes eternal — because it is a property of a body that you claim to be eternal.
And if this property (the occurrence) is inseparable from that body, then it would be impossible for the property of something eternal to be originated — since that would make what is created eternal, and what is eternal created — an impossibility of the clearest kind.
The atheist said:
“Then what prevents you from saying that these substances (bodies) themselves are the ones that produce these states?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“For the same reason I rejected your earlier claim. There is no difference between saying that they produce these states without preceding their own act, and saying that they are eternal without preceding their own attributes.
For the doer (the agent) must precede his deed and exist before it, and likewise the eternal, who has always existed, must precede that which did not exist before.
To affirm an act for them means to affirm that the act is new (originated). And if they did not precede their act, you have united both in a single state — making one thing both eternal and originated at the same time. And that is a manifest impossibility.”
[The Theory of Matter (Hyle) and Form, and the Origination of Things from One Another]
The atheist said:
“I have never seen anything come into being except from something else. So what prevents you from saying that things have always been forming one from another? And what prevents you from saying that the thing which is the origin is eternal?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, replied:
“I reject that most emphatically. For the thing that is claimed to be the origin cannot be free from one of two possibilities:
either it possesses the same states, forms, and attributes as its offspring (the things that come from it), or it does not.
If it does possess the same attributes and forms as its offspring, then its ruling regarding origination (being created) is the same as theirs — and we have already discussed that matter sufficiently.
Moreover, we find that forms, colors, shapes, and attributes appear in it after they were not found there before — and the existence of a thing after its nonexistence is the clearest evidence of its being created!
Now tell me — from what origin did the form itself come?
If you say it is eternal, you have said something absurd. For it cannot be free from certain consequences:
If the form were eternal, then it must either have been within this particular shaped thing in which the form appears, or within its material element that you call hyle (matter).
If it were within this shaped thing itself, your claim is clearly false — for we find that thing sometimes in one form and sometimes in another, contrary to the claim that the form was always there.
And if it were within what you call hyle (prime matter), then once the form appears in this shaped thing, it must have moved from the hyle into it.
But if you say it moved, you have spoken absurdly — for accidents (attributes) cannot transfer from one subject to another.
Besides, we see that the form is visible to the eye. If it had indeed moved, why then did it remain invisible during its supposed movement, and only become visible when it settled?
There is another flaw as well: if the form was originally in the source (the hyle), and then transferred from it into its offspring (the shaped object), you have thereby given that movement both a beginning and an end.
And when you give something a beginning and an end, you have in fact confirmed that it is originated (created), for anything that has limits must have begun.
And if you say, ‘It has always been transferring,’ then our previous argument against you in the earlier discussion — regarding your claim that ‘things have always been happening’ — applies equally here.”
He (al-Qāsim) continued:
“There is yet another consideration:
When you imagine things in your mind as being two entities, such that when each is separated from the other it becomes diminished, limited, and small, but when you combine them together they increase and become greater — then does not this increase and decrease itself indicate an end and a limit?
And if something has a limit, it must have a beginning.
And once a beginning is affirmed for it — its createdness (origination) is established beyond doubt.”
[The Theory of Latency and Manifestation (Potential and Actualization)]
The atheist said:
“What prevents you from saying that the form of the date and the palm tree is latent within the seed, and that when it finds what resembles it, it merely manifests?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“That is pure ignorance. For if we were to examine the parts of the seed thoroughly, we would find nothing in it of what you claim.”
“And there is another reason: if this were permissible, then it would also be permissible to say that within a human being lies the latent form of a pig, a donkey, or a dog. And if that were so, the human being would be a man outwardly, yet inwardly a dog, a donkey, a pig, or an elephant!
If you claim that, then you have joined the company of the Sophists (Sūfistāʾiyyah). If you wish, we may discuss their doctrine as well — though their folly is so obvious to those of reason that it spares us the need to refute it in detail.”
The atheist said:
“How can it be possible that a human is outwardly a man, but inwardly a dog, a donkey, or an elephant?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“In the very same way that you claim the form of the date and the palm tree is hidden within the seed!”
The atheist said:
“But there is similarity (resemblance) between the date, the palm tree, and the seed, whereas there is no similarity between the human being and the dog.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“If there were similarity between the date, the palm tree, and the seed — despite their difference in form — then by the same logic, there could be similarity between the human being and the dog!”
The atheist said:
“But the seed, when it changes its form, changes into the form of the palm tree.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“And likewise, according to your reasoning, when the parts of the human being are dispersed, they could become, in nature and potential and material substance (hylē), a dog.
Whatever distinction you wish to make between them is, therefore, either to my advantage or at least applies equally.”
He continued:
“Another argument: if the form truly existed within the seed itself, then the seed itself would be the date — because the date is only distinguished from all other things and recognized as such by its form.
Thus, if its form already existed in the seed, the seed must already be a date.
But that is a contradiction to reason — for if that were true, then the appearance of the form within the seed would be more evident, more frequent, and more universal, and it would not be impossible for two forms to coexist simultaneously within one substance.
The atheist said:
‘The seed is a date in potential — in its material capacity (quwwah hayūlāniyyah). I mean that when it transforms, it only transforms into its own tree, and then into its fruit, and then returns to its origin, and finally becomes a seed once more within it.’”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“If what you say were true, then the nature that you call the original principle would itself have to be a date in potential, according to your own doctrine — if you are among those who believe in the eternity of time (the Dahriyya).
And if you are a dualist (Thanawī) who holds that the two principles are light and darkness, or whatever original source you claim, then that source too must, according to you, be a date in potential — since through its transformations it eventually becomes a date.
But this is an obvious contradiction, for it would oblige you to admit that the absolute original substance is, in potential, a date, a seed, a peach, an eggplant — and anything else — since, by your reasoning, transformation from one form to another is possible in all directions.
And if, according to you, the rule that applies to the originals differs from that which applies to the derivatives (branches), then we shall address that distinction in a complete and satisfactory way, God willing.”
The atheist said:
“If it is confirmed that the ruling of the origins is the same as the ruling of the derivatives, then I must abandon my doctrine — for the doubt I had at this point has become very great indeed.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“Know that the ways by which we gain knowledge of things are various.
Some are known through the senses,
some are known through the soul,
some are known through the intellect,
and some are known through supposition and estimation (ẓann and ḥisban).
As for what is known through the senses, its paths are five:
hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch.
- Hearing is the path to perceiving sounds and speech.
- Sight is the path to perceiving colors and forms.
- Taste is the path to perceiving what is eaten.
- Smell is the path to perceiving fragrances.
- Touch is the path to perceiving softness and roughness.
As for what is known through the soul, it includes:
shame, fear, joy, sadness, patience, anguish, pleasure, dislike, and similar inner experiences and perceptions of the imagination and emotion.
And what is known through the intellect is of two kinds:
- That which the intellect perceives by its innate intuition (self-evidence):
such as recognizing the goodness of what is good, the evil of what is evil, the beauty of generosity, gratitude to the benefactor, and the ugliness of ingratitude, injustice, and similar matters known naturally to reason. - That which is known through inference and reasoning (deduction):
which is the product of intellectual deliberation — such as knowledge of the Creator, understanding of justice and injustice, and knowledge of the true realities of things.”
As for what is known through supposition and estimation (ẓann wa ḥisban), it is to make a judgment about something without proof. Such a judgment may sometimes be correct, and sometimes mistaken.
I have summarized all of this for you so that it may serve as a support for us in the rest of our discussion and as one of the foundational principles to which we shall refer.
For every kind of knowledge can only be attained through its proper path. If you try to attain it through some other path, it will become difficult for you — like one who seeks to know colors through hearing, or to know tastes through sight.
Now, as for the states of physical bodies, the way to know them is through sight — for sight reveals bodies to man. And bodies cannot be without their attributes (such as color, shape, and form).
Hence, it is impossible to conceive of a body without these qualities, or to imagine it in one’s mind stripped of them. Since that is impossible, it is established that bodies are never without their attributes, and that the ruling of their originals (their material principles) must be the same as the ruling of their derivatives (the things that come from them).
[The Cause of the Existence and Corruption of Things]
The atheist said:
“They (the philosophers) claim that the cause of the existence and corruption of things lies in the movements of the celestial spheres and the courses of the stars. Some say that their cause is the intermingling of the two natures — light and darkness — while others have different opinions.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, replied:
“The proof of the falsehood of their claim is found in the words of Allah, the Exalted:
‘And among you is he who dies, and among you is he who is brought back to the most abject stage of life.’ [al-Naḥl 16:70]
and His saying:
‘Whomever We grant long life, We reverse in creation; do they not then understand?’ [Yā Sīn 36:68]
If the cause of human existence were what they claim — the movements of the spheres or the mixture of light and darkness — then a person would not die in childhood nor would his being be corrupted while that cause remained present.
That is, death and decay could not occur so long as the supposed cause of existence remained in effect — unless they admit the occurrence of a new cause of corruption.
But if they admit that, then they have abandoned their own doctrine.
And if they say instead that both the cause of existence and the cause of corruption are eternal, then that too is impossible.
For if a thing is at one time sound and at another corrupted, while both causes (existence and corruption) are eternally present, this would mean that they coexist simultaneously. But it is impossible for both opposing causes to exist together — for then one person would die in infancy, another would be reversed in old age, another would be restored after decay, all while the causes supposedly remain constant and eternal.
By my life, such reasoning is the very opposite of intellect!
The atheist said:
“If that objection applies to them, then it must apply to you as well — since you claim that God is the cause of the existence and corruption of things. So your reasoning would bind you just as it binds your opponents.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“No — the two cases are not the same!
For we do not claim that God is a cause (ʿillah) of the existence and corruption of things in the philosophical sense.
Rather, we say that God — Exalted is He — brought things into being and causes them to perish, by His will, not by necessity.
The proof that God, Mighty and Majestic, is not a cause (in the deterministic sense) is that His acts differ in states and change in attributes — He gives life, causes death, creates, and destroys.
If He were a cause in the sense they claim, nothing would ever depart from its state — for He, Exalted is His mention, is eternal.
And if the eternal were the cause of something, its effect would likewise be eternal and unceasing, just as the cause itself is.
But the fact that things change from one state to another, and cease to exist after existing, proves that Allah — Glorified be He — is neither a cause nor an effect, but rather the free and willing Creator who acts as He wills.”
Then the atheist said:
“May Allah bless you and your descendants! You have made clear what was obscure to me. I wish to ask you about another matter — and if you answer it as you have answered this one, I will accept Islam.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“If you accept Islam, it will be for your own good; but if you persist, your persistence will not harm Allah in the least. Ask whatever you wish.”
[The Unity of the Creator]
The atheist said:
“What is the proof that the Maker of the world is one?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“If there were more than one creator, then each of them would necessarily be living and powerful — would he not?
Now, if each were living and powerful, then it would not be impossible for one of them, whenever he willed to create something, to be opposed or prevented by the other from creating that very thing.
If one were able to prevent the other, then the one prevented would be powerless — and his powerlessness would prove that he is created (not eternal).
And if both of them opposed and counteracted one another, their powers would be equal and mutually negating. Disorder and corruption would ensue, and neither of them would be able to complete the creation of anything; each would thus be marked by inability, since neither could achieve his will.
But since we find the world to be orderly, harmonious in its arrangement, and perfectly managed, that shows us that its Maker cannot be two — nor more than that, but one.”
The atheist said:
“What prevents you from saying that the two might agree and reconcile?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“Agreement and reconciliation imply that both parties deliberately intend to agree — and such intention necessarily points to contingency and origination.
For they could only agree out of necessity, and whatever is compelled or determined by necessity is created, without doubt.”
The atheist said:
“But they (the dualists) say: the maker of good never brings about evil, and the maker of evil never brings about good.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“This is a contradiction to reason.”
The atheist said:
“How so?”
Al-Qāsim replied:
“Because that would entail saying that no one has ever sinned and then repented, or that no human has ever both spoken truth and told falsehood, or ever gone astray and then been guided.
Do you not see that they claim their doctrine is true, and that it is obligatory for people to return to their religion?
Now, if one and the same being cannot bring forth both good and evil, then tell me — what do they claim about those whom they invite to their religion?
If they say these people are good, we reply: the good never misguides anyone.
And if they say they are evil, we reply: the evil never guides anyone.
So, I wonder — who, then, are the ones calling people to their doctrine?”
The atheist said:
“By my life, you have skillfully cornered them in their argument. Indeed, this cuts off their quarrel.
But they also say: since there is both good and evil in the world, that proves that they come from two eternal origins.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“As for the existence of both good and evil in the world, we indeed find them — but this in fact proves that the Maker of the world is one.
The proof is that good and evil alternate between the good person and the wicked person alike. We find them both to be originated — and we have already shown sufficiently that the world, in its origin and its branches, is created, and that whatever is created must have a Creator.
Now, if the Creator’s nature were the same as that of what He creates — meaning, if He too were originated — then every creator would need another creator, and so on without end.
But we have already shown that an infinite regress of causes is impossible.
Another line of reasoning:
The difference between good and evil does not imply their eternity — for their difference is no greater than the difference between forms and shapes.
We have already said that such differences point to the One who distinguished and fashioned them as different.
If good and evil, and all other opposites, were themselves eternal, then that would require denying what is self-evident and necessary.
And another proof:
We observe that good exists for a certain reason, and evil exists for another reason; and we see that good and evil can coexist at the same moment.
Now, in their coexistence, there are only two possibilities:
- Either they come together by themselves, or
- Something else gathers them together.
If they came together by themselves, that would be impossible — for they are opposites, and opposites do not unite by their own nature. We observe their mutual aversion and opposition.
Therefore, since it is impossible for them to unite by themselves, it must be that a Gatherer united them — One who brings together opposites according to His will.
Another argument:
If the existence of good and evil were proof that there are two eternal origins, then by the same logic, the existence of the four natural elements (fire, air, water, and earth) would also prove four eternal origins.
But since this is absurd, it follows that their testimony is false — and indeed, their very witness is a false witness.”
[The Wisdom Behind the Creation of the World]
The atheist said:
“If the world is not eternal, nor the product of the mixture of two principles, but rather a creation made by an eternal Creator — then tell me, why did God create this world?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“This question is a branch that grows from a root. So, if you first accept the root, I will explain the branch to you; but if you do not, I will debate you regarding the root itself.”
The atheist said:
“And what is that root?”
Al-Qāsim replied:
“It is that you must first know — through clear proofs — that the world is created, and that it therefore has a Creator;
then you must know that this Creator is one and eternal;
and then that He is powerful, living, and wise in Himself and in His acts.”
The atheist said:
“You have already shown that there is a Creator and that He is one. But what is the proof that He is powerful, living, and wise?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“The proof is that we find acts which are perfectly arranged and harmoniously made — and such precise acts can only come from one who is powerful, living, wise, and knowing.
Thus, when we see perfection in the act, we are led to the knowledge that its Maker must be wise, powerful, living, and knowing.”
The atheist said:
“Have you ever found any capable and wise agent other than man?”
Al-Qāsim replied:
“No.”
The atheist said:
“Then do you claim that God is a human?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“Though we find that humans can act wisely, the act does not occur because they are human — for we also find humans who cannot act wisely at all.
When we see that some humans fail to act, it shows us that the true Actor is not man himself.
Do you not see that when we say ‘an act can only proceed from one who is capable and wise,’ our statement holds consistently — yet when applied to humans, it fails to hold universally? Therefore, we do not attribute it to them.”
The atheist said:
“You have answered that clearly. Let us then return to my question.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“Ask.”
The atheist said:
“Why did God create the world?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“God, the Exalted, said:
‘He who created death and life, that He may test which of you is best in deed.’ [al-Mulk 67:2]
‘And I did not create jinn and mankind except that they may worship Me.’ [al-Dhāriyāt 51:56]
‘And He has subjected to you all that is in the heavens and on the earth, all from Him.’ [al-Jāthiyah 45:13]
He thus informed us that He created us for worship, for testing, and to raise us to the loftiest ranks and highest stations.”
The atheist said:
“What then moved Him to create us? Was it out of need?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“As for your saying, ‘what moved Him?’ — that is impossible.
For He has always been all-knowing, never heedless nor forgetful.
To ask ‘what moved Him?’ implies heedlessness or change of will, and such applies only to the ignorant or inattentive.
He who cannot be heedless cannot be moved or stirred to do something — for there is no forgetfulness in Him, no ignorance.
And heedlessness is a mark of createdness — yet He, Exalted is He, is eternal.
As for your saying, ‘Was it out of need?’ — need is a property of created beings, and the Eternal is exalted above all need.”
The atheist said:
“Then why did He create at all?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“I have already answered that: He created for worship and trial — that is the meaning of why He created.
Your question ‘why’ is answered by our ‘because.’”
The atheist said:
“What, then, is the wisdom in creating the world and in creating beings to be tested?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“The wisdom in that lies in benevolence — or in what leads to benevolence.
And whoever performs an act of goodness, or calls to goodness, is wise — by what we know of wisdom.”
The atheist said:
“How can one be wise who creates creatures and subjects them to pain and suffering of all kinds?
Show me from our own world an example of the wisdom in that.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“As for your saying, ‘How can one be wise who creates beings and causes them pain?’ —
the answer, from what we witness, is that some pains are themselves means to goodness.
For example:
- The blows of a teacher to a child, to discipline him;
- The act of bloodletting or cupping;
- The drinking of bitter medicine — all of these are pains that lead to healing or benefit.
If, in our experience, some pains lead to good, then all that God brings about — death, illness, punishment, and so on — are likewise done with wisdom and sound purpose, since all of them serve as means leading to greater good.”
The atheist said:
“What proof do you have that these are truly means to goodness?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“The proof is that these are the acts of the Wise — and the acts of the Wise are only those that invite to safety, health, and goodness, and warn against grief, evil, and sickness.
And whoever calls to goodness is, by what we understand, wise.
As for your saying, ‘Why test creatures, when most fail the test?’ —
we say, and there is no strength except with Allah:
God’s testing, commanding, and forbidding are all calls to goodness.
Whoever fails, fails by his own self — not by God.
For he did not do what God commanded, nor refrain from what He forbade.
Had he done so, it would have led him to the greatest success.
Thus, his failure is from himself, not from God — exalted is He.
And an example from our world:
Suppose a wise master gives his servants money and says,
‘Trade with this — if you profit and act rightly, I will reward you; if you squander it, I will punish you.’
If some obey and some disobey, the blame does not fall upon the master, but upon those who disobeyed.
Nor does the master’s offer of wealth or command cease to be wise — for his intention was only to lead them to success.
Likewise, God is wise in His testing, commanding, and forbidding.”
The atheist said:
“But God already knows what they will end up doing — whereas we do not.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“Ignorance and knowledge do not make what is good, good — nor what is evil, evil.
If commanding a person to do good were good only because the commander knows what will happen,
then commanding good while ignorant of the outcome would be evil — yet it is not.
For when one of us commands what is good, even if he does not know how the commanded person will respond, his command is still good.
Thus, whether the one commanding good knows or does not know the outcome makes no difference in the moral nature of his command.
And another point:
If it were evil to test someone knowing he will disobey,
then nothing would be more evil than granting intellect — for disobedience only occurs when intellect exists,
and reward and blame are based upon it.
Yet all nations — monotheists and atheists alike — agree that granting intellect is good.
Therefore, it follows that testing, creating, and commanding what is good are all good — whether the person obeys or disobeys, whether God knows it or not.”
The atheist said:
“Then why did He mix good with evil, make one person rich and another poor, one beautiful and another ugly?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“This world is a world of trial and testing.
The very nature of a trial is that one is commanded or subjected to what burdens his nature — to see whether he will obey or not.
If God had only created what pleases one’s nature and commanded only what is easy, that would be pleasure, not testing.
Therefore, since this world is the world of trial, the proper order of wisdom required that good be mixed with evil, benefit with harm, the pleasant with the unpleasant, beauty with ugliness.
If the world were all pleasant, it would be the world of reward.
And if it were all painful, it would be the world of punishment.
But the world of reward and punishment is not this one.
And know that even if you did not understand the reasons behind these things, it would still be acceptable —
for once you have established, by proof, that the Creator is wise in Himself and in His acts,
then you know that all His acts are wise, even if you do not grasp their reasons.
An example from our own world:
If we were to come upon the workshop of a craftsman,
and see tools that are straight and others that are curved,
some large, some small, some thick, some thin —
and we were to judge, from that, that the craftsman was unwise — we would be ignorant, placing wisdom in the wrong place.
Rather, what is proper is that we acknowledge the wisdom of the craftsmen,
and know that they make nothing without purpose, even if we do not understand that purpose.
We then realize that the curved and the straight, the small and the large, each serve a role that the other cannot serve.
Thus, wisdom is properly attributed when every thing is placed in its right place.
Understand this well, and you will find it as I have said, God willing.”
“So, since all the acts of God are either benevolence or means that lead to benevolence,
He — exalted and blessed is He — is wise in all His acts, for all of them are good in reason.
And if you ask, ‘Why does He do what is good?’
the answer is: He does the good because it is good.
If He did not do the good because it is good, then He would not refrain from the evil because it is evil —
and that idea is evil enough by itself.”
[The Sending of Messengers and the Wisdom of Divine Legislation]
The atheist said:
“You have spoken excellently, but there still remain a few questions.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“Ask.”
The atheist said:
“What is the proof that the Creator has sent messengers?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“The proof is that the Creator is wise and benevolent toward His creation.
And reason itself judges that gratitude toward a benefactor is obligatory.
Now, since reason obliges gratitude toward the benefactor, and since God — the Wise — has bestowed blessings upon His creatures,
it follows that part of His perfect beneficence is that He should send to them messengers, accompanied by clear evidences that compel the mind to recognize them, in order to teach people how to show that gratitude.
For the manner of showing gratitude is not something that can be known by reason, nor by the soul, nor by the senses, nor by mere conjecture — even though reason admits that such a thing is possible.
Thus, God sent messengers bearing miracles and signs to demonstrate their truthfulness.”
The atheist said:
“It seems you are saying that the laws brought by the prophets are outside the scope of reason, since you said that their manner cannot be known through it.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“As for your saying that the laws of the messengers are outside the realm of reason because their manner is not known through it — I did not say that their manner is absolutely beyond reason.
What I said is that, although their specific manner cannot be derived by reason, reason does affirm the possibility and rightness of their existence.”
The atheist said:
“How is that?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“It is like what we observe in ordinary life.
If a master commands his servant to build a house, or to cut down a tree, or to give a gift to someone, or to strike another —
there is nothing in reason itself that demands such a command before it is given.
But once the master gives the order, reason recognizes that obedience is good and disobedience is bad,
provided that the master’s command carries a wise and beneficial purpose for the servant.
Thus, reason allows for the possibility of any such command, but it does not require one specific command over another.
What reason affirms is that once a wise master commands, obedience to him is good.
Likewise, in religion, once it is established that the One who commands is wise,
reason recognizes that His commands must be good and His prohibitions must be evil —
even if the specific acts commanded or forbidden are not themselves known to reason independently.”
The atheist said:
“Then tell me — prayer, fasting, and the rest of the laws: do they have any rational basis from which they branch?”
Al-Qāsim said:
“Yes. I have already told you that.
They are like the example of the master commanding his servant to go to a certain place, or to strike someone, or to give charity —
the rational basis is obedience to the wise command.
The wisdom behind such commands is that the one who commands does so to test whether the commanded will obey,
so that he may reward him for his obedience —
especially since the one who commands (God) is self-sufficient, needing nothing from what He commands.
He commands them, therefore, to test them and to make their deeds manifest —
and in this lies the goodness of the act itself.
And this is the nature of all divine laws.”
The atheist said:
“Tell me about the nature of their miracles.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“The essence of a miracle is the overturning of natural patterns — that the usual order of things should be suspended.
When one of the prophets came and his people asked him for proof of his truthfulness,
he would say: ‘The proof is that God will alter your ordinary course of things in such-and-such a manner.’
When they then witnessed that the natural order had indeed been overturned as he foretold,
they recognized his truthfulness and were compelled to accept his claim.
This is the way of all miracles —
and by such signs is the true prophet distinguished from the false claimant,
and the truthful messenger from the liar.”
[The Wisdom Behind Death and Resurrection]
The atheist said:
“There still remains a doubt in my heart, and I would like you to remove it with your insight and sound judgment.”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, said:
“Speak, may God bless you!”
The atheist said:
“Tell me — why does God cause man to die and turn him into dust, after having made him speak words of wondrous wisdom and formed him in such an astonishing and beautiful image?
And why does He destroy the whole world?
Consider: if a man built a house and then destroyed it without reason, would you call him wise?”
Al-Qāsim, peace be upon him, replied:
“It is not as you think.
Tell me — if a man built a house suitable for winter, and when summer came he demolished it and rebuilt it for summer, would you call him wise?”
The atheist said:
“Yes.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“Why?”
The atheist said:
“Because what is suited for winter is not suited for summer, and what is suited for summer is not suited for winter.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“Likewise, God — exalted is He — created this world and all within it for trial and testing.
When its appointed time comes to an end, He will destroy it and then recreate it anew —
‘that He may recompense those who did evil with what they have done, and reward those who have done good with the best reward.’ [al-Najm 53:31]
This is not contrary to wisdom — rather, it is wisdom itself that reward and punishment should not be lost.”
The atheist said:
“Many from among the followers of religions have spoken about divine unity, justice, and prophecy — yet they all still doubt whether the dead will truly live again.
Each brings his own claim.
If you can prove to me the reality of resurrection and its manner, you will leave me without a single doubt, and I will then believe in my Lord.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“As for the proof of its reality: I have found that God — blessed and exalted — is wise.
He has tested His creatures, commanded them, and forbidden them.
Now, whoever claims that the test will be abolished calls for negligence;
and negligence implies that God is not wise.
If such a thing were possible, then it would also be possible to claim that the world itself is eternal —
for there would be no difference between saying that this wondrous creation was made by an unwise being,
and saying that it came into being without any maker at all.
In both cases, things would exist eternally without cause or order.
But such claims lead only to ignorance and absurdity.
Therefore, since it is established that God is wise, it follows that He does not abandon His creation.
And since He does not abandon them, there must be command and prohibition, and among them the obedient and the disobedient.
Reason demands that there be a difference between God’s friends and His enemies.
Yet we see that, in this world, the conditions of both are alike: among God’s enemies are the rich and the poor, the healthy and the sick — and the same among His friends.
Since their conditions in this world are similar, yet reason requires that they be distinguished, it follows necessarily that there must be another realm in which that distinction is made and they are brought back to life —
as Allah said: ‘Shall We make those who believe and do good like those who spread corruption on earth? Shall We make the righteous like the wicked?’ [Ṣād 38:28]
“As for your question about how the resurrection occurs:
God, exalted be He, made the soul the life of the human body —
just as the earth is made to live when it quivers with rain and brings forth vegetation.
Likewise, when the soul is joined to the body, the human becomes living and moving, as soon as they are united.
The atheist said:
“How can the soul be joined to the body when the body has turned to dust?”
Al-Qāsim replied:
“How does water mingle with the dry, lifeless earth when it has become hard and barren?”
The atheist said:
“By rainfall or by flowing upon it, the parts of the earth unite with the parts of the water through a natural compatibility, and thus the earth trembles and stirs.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“Likewise, the soul is sent to that dust; it touches and mingles with it — and then the human lives and moves once more.
Do you not see how man was first created?
Was he not once dust?
When God joined his body with his spirit, he became a living human being.
The beginning of man’s creation is proof of his return —
as God said:
‘Say: He will revive them who first brought them into being, and He is, of all creation, All-Knowing — He who made for you fire from the green tree, and behold, you kindle from it.’ [Yā Sīn 36:79–80]”
The atheist said:
“But there is no similarity between spirit and dust, as far as we know!”
Al-Qāsim said:
“Do you see any similarity between fire and the green tree?”
The atheist said:
“Yes — for both are composed of the four natural elements, and one of them is fire.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“God is greater!
Do you see similarity between fire and the other three elements — water, air, and earth?”
The atheist said:
“No.”
Al-Qāsim said:
“Then how do they coexist within the same tree?
Since it is possible for fire to exist together with water, air, and earth — despite there being no likeness between them —
it is likewise possible for the spirit to be joined with the dust in resurrection.”
At this, the atheist said:
“I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah.
All that he brought is true.
May destruction be upon the people who went astray and missed one such as you.”
He then accepted Islam and his faith became sincere.
He would thereafter regularly visit the Imām, the Commander of the Faithful, al-Qāsim, peace be upon him,
and learn from him the laws of Islam.
The debate ended.
And may blessings and peace be upon our master Muḥammad and upon his pure and noble family.