Aslam

Praise be to Allah.

If you say that

the Big Bang came before everything else, this means that you have not

studied the theory of the Big Bang itself, and you are contradicting its

meaning and basic idea, because this theory affirms that, if it is proven

that the universe is constantly expanding, that must mean that in the past

it was close together, and this being close together means that

gravitational force and compactness between its parts was so great that

there was no space between them, (near the beginning) the pressure was so

intense that all the matter that forms the universe was the size of an atom,

then (further back in time, to the point of the beginning) the size was

infinitely small and was nothing. This implies that at that point there was

no time or space, because matter itself did not exist.

Therefore when

this universe began – when its age was less than a billionth part of a

second – which was approximately fifteen billion years ago, as the

proponents of this theory say – the size of its matter was very close to

zero. Then this pressurised matter exploded and scattered its particles in

the form of rays, then it began to cool down, and our universe was gradually

formed from it. Hence this theory is called the Big Bang. … This is the view

of Stephen Hawking, whom some people called the Newton of the modern era,

when he said: “The greatest misunderstanding of the Big Bang is to say that

it started with a mass of matter somewhere in outer space. Matter is not the

only thing that was created during the Big Bang; rather time and space were

also created. Therefore in the same sense that we say place has a beginning,

we also say that time has a beginning.” [The Universe, Bozlo, p. 46]

He also says:

“This means that the very beginning of the universe was chosen with great

care, if the theory of the hot Big Bang was correct from the beginning of

time. It is very difficult to explain why the universe began in this

particular way, unless we say concerning that that there was indeed a

Creator who wanted to create beings like ourselves” [A Brief History of

Time, Hawking, p. 127]. See: al-Feeziya’ wa Wujood al-Khaaliq (p.

87-96).

This question

is obviously flawed, because the Big Bang cannot – rationally – have come

before everything, unless you believe that this Big Bang was the Necessary

Existent, that has all attributes of perfection, but that description refers

to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, if this is what you mean, then we

accept from you this claim that the Big Bang came before everything, and we

will agree with you that the universe was created by a Creator Who is

eternal.

But when the

question demands that we regard as equal the Creator Who is the Necessary

Existent Who is possessed of all attributes of perfection and the Big Bang

which is an incident that came into being after not having existed at all,

then the argument is flawed on two counts:

1.

Because it describes the Big Bang as something that had no beginning, but at

the same time it is regarded as an incident that came into being after not

having existed at all, and this is self-contradictory, because that which

existed from eternity (and had no beginning) cannot be an incident

2.

Because it describes the Big Bang as being eternal (having no beginning),

and does not pay attention to the prerequisites of a thing being eternal,

the most important of which is that it must necessarily exist and possess

the attributes of perfection, and that refers to Allah, may He be glorified

and exalted. Anyone who describes the universe as having existed from

eternity falls into this contradiction. What he should have done is refer

(the matter of creation) to something other than this created universe, and

that is Allah, the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted.

As for the

Muslim, he does not fall into this contradiction, because he will tell you

that the Creator existed from eternity and He was and there was nothing

before Him, because He is the Necessary Existent, and with Him the chain of

all created beings ends. When the Muslim describes Him as being before all

things, that is because He cannot be compared with created beings,

possibilities or incidents; rather He is greater than that. As for the

atheist who affirmed that this universe came into being after not having

existed, he is trying to explain it by referring to the Big Bang, which in

itself is of the same nature as the universe, with regard to it coming under

the heading of possibilities or incidents, then he ascribed to it the

attribute of existing from eternity, but this is not possible at all.

We believe that

it is easy for the human mind to believe in the idea that the universe is

created, whereas it is difficult for it to believe in a universe that

existed from eternity and had no beginning, when he sees at the same time

all the signs that show that it is not eternal as it is clearly and

obviously subject to constant alterations and changes.

As for the

concept of the Creator existing from eternity, that is something easy for

man to believe, because of a simple and straightforward reason, which is

that the Creator is not of the same nature as the created being, which means

rejecting all the rules of comparison and analogy that humans use and try to

apply to the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted. In that case the

explanation (that there is a Creator Who existed from eternity) makes

perfect sense. Although the Creator is unseen, the believer believes in Him

because He the Necessary Existent who is the Knower of the unseen world.

As for the one

who believes that the universe is an incident or created thing that existed

before everything, he believes in something that is impossible from a

rational point of view. Undoubtedly believing in the Creator is much easier

than believing in a created thing that existed from eternity.

In other words,

we may ask this atheist, is the Big Bang a possibility or a necessity?

If he says that

it is a possibility, then that which is possible could not have existed from

eternity.

If he says that

it is a necessity, then he has affirmed the existence of that which

necessarily exists from eternity and has no creator. In that case he has

affirmed the idea that there is a divine being.

The matter is

as simple as that.

Here we will

give some simple examples for that.

If you see some

important decision, that could change the course of the company, being made

in some large company, and then people differed concerning the source of

this decision, there are two possibilities:

1.

either a group of employees, all of whom held positions at the same level,

and none of them has more authority than another, and every time one is

asked to make a decision he defers it to his colleague because he has no

authority to make a decision, so the matter kept going in this sequence

until the decision was made as a result of this sequence;

2.

or an

employee of a higher rank, who has absolute authority and has no colleague

at an equal position in the company, so that the matter could be passed

between him and that person, took this audacious decision, so that it was

done after not having being done,

then which

possibility is more reasonable and which do you feel more at ease with?

Undoubtedly it

is the second possibility, even though you may not know about this

highest-ranking employee who is the one who made the decision – how he was

appointed and who gave him this authority – but you find this to be

something acceptable, because of the difference in rank and position between

this employee and the other, ordinary employees. That was sufficient for you

as an explanation of how major decisions are made in this company.

However, if you

continue in the sequence (mentioned in the first scenario) and say that this

employee ordered that employee, ad infinitum in the realm of lower level

employees, that will not be convincing at all as an explanation of the

matter, unless you explain the way the decision was made by referring it to

one who is in a leading position, who does not need to be appointed by

anyone else or wait for the decision of anyone else.

Allah, may He

be glorified and exalted, is the One Who is the first and only

decision-maker with regard to the creation of this universe and bringing it

into existence; He is the One Who does not ask for permission from anyone

else. “He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be

questioned” [al-Anbiya’

21:23].

For He is the Creator, Who is different from created beings. Then (after

concluding that there is a Creator) you have to attribute to this Creator,

may He be glorified and exalted, that which is hidden from you of absolute

perfect attributes, such as existence from eternity, because you are

speaking about a very significant matter that has nothing to do with

anything ordinary; rather it has to do with something beyond human

capability and beyond that with which humans are familiar, namely the

creation of this universe from nothing. So it is more appropriate that you

should refer (the creation of the universe) to a Creator Who is the

Necessary Existent, First and Last, rather than referring it to any created

being and attributing to it existence from eternity to eternity. In other

words, we say that referring the issue of creation to a Creator who is

eternal and has no beginning is the inevitable conclusion of the process of

thinking about the cause of this universe and how it came about, because

alternative explanations, which say that the universe is eternal (and had no

beginning) or that it created itself, or that things came into existence by

themselves after having been nothing, are clearly false, as is obvious to

anyone who examines these ideas. Therefore he has no choice, as he will be

compelled by his rational thinking, and also by his common sense, to believe

in another cause, far beyond that with which we are familiar and that we

know, that cannot have a beginning, or it cannot be that anyone created Him,

and that is Allah, may He be glorified and exalted.

If, after this

conclusion, you again ask: then who created Allah? This means that you did

not understand the different stages of examining and thinking mentioned

above, and you have not understood how those who believe in Allah, may He be

glorified and exalted, reached that conclusion; you want to take the debate

back to square one.

Dr Ja‘far

Shaykh Idrees (may Allah preserve him) said – answering the specious

argument of Hume which says that if the universe needed a cause, then God

also needs a cause:

I never thought

that a thinker – whether he was a believer or a nonbeliever – could

seriously ask this question: who created God? When he knows what this word

(God) signifies.

But it seems

that some prominent Western physicists take this question seriously and in

fact regard it as one of the main flaws in the view that there is a Creator.

We see Hawking also saying about God: who created Him?

The answer to

this question, which these philosophers, scientists and many others think is

a dilemma, is very easy:

If the opponent

(in an argument) accepts that the universe, which is an incident or created

thing, must have a cause that is not an incident, then if he accepts that

this cause is not an incident – i.e. it is eternal – which is called God,

then his question about the Creator or cause of God has no meaning at all,

for it is a question on the part of one who does not understand what he is

saying; it is a question that contains a very weird contradiction, because

the cause by necessity precedes the effect, and that which is eternal, by

necessity is not preceded by anything. So how can it have a cause?

For someone to

say “Who created God?” is the equivalent of saying: “What preceded the thing

before which there was nothing?” Or “what comes after the thing after which

there is nothing?” Does such a question even make sense? If you tell a man

that So-and-so came first in a race, is it acceptable for him to say: Fine,

but who came before him? Similarly in this case proof is established that

God is the First and there is nothing before Him, so how can it be said

“what was the cause of Him?” or “who created Him?”?

However, Davies

and Pareau, and others who followed them in imitating Hume, give the

impression that those who base their evidence for the existence of the

Creator on the existence of the universe have decided on the basis of pure

whims and desires that the universe requires a cause to bring it into

existence. Then they foolishly decided that God does not need this cause,

hence they claimed that we cannot stop at the universe (so there must be

something beyond it). But when they got to God, they stopped with Him and

did not go any further. There is no difference – according to their claim –

between stopping here or stopping there.

From both of

them, and from others, this is a sign of confusion because they overlooked

the huge difference between the nature of the universe, which is an incident

or created thing, and the nature of the Creator, Who is eternal.

End quote from

al-Feeziya’ wa Wujood al-Khaaliq (120-124).

We will quote

here a fictional debate that was written by one of those who specialise in

debating with atheists, which will highlight the reality of this confusion

into which the questioner has fallen.

The atheist

said: Your stating that Allah is the Creator of all things is a statement

that could be undermined by asking: So who is it that created Allah?

The Muslim

said: No, it does not undermine it, because we say that if there is any

being that has the attribute of creation (being able to create), yet at the

same time there is someone who created him, then he is like his creation: he

is also a created being. And any maker who could be described as such yet at

the same time there is someone who made him, is also made, like the things

that he makes.

Does this

statement imply that it is not possible to have a supreme Creator outside of

this circle, who has no creator or maker, and no one is equal to Him, and He

is the origin and initiator of all things?

Not at all;

rather this Creator is the Necessary Existant, who must exist on a rational

basis, because he is the end of that chain, which reason cannot accept but

that it must end with Him. We are talking about the Creator who is not a

created being, who is completely outside this system, so He is not subject

to the rules of the system, and cannot be compared to any (hypothetical)

“creator/created being”, because He is the one who ordained the rules in

this universe, and initiated (those rules) on the basis of His power and

creation in the first place.

So the created

thing cannot create itself; rather it must have been created by something

else and this chain must inevitably, according to rational thinking, end

with the first initiator, the first creator, who was not created by anything

and is not part of that chain and does not form one link in it at all.

Rather he is the one who created the entire chain and everything in it; so

He is not part of it and is not limited by its limits or subject to its law.

Such is Allah, the All-Knowing Creator.

The atheist

said: If He is not subject to its laws, and we cannot perceive Him with our

senses, then how can we be expected to imagine Him in our minds and believe

in Him in our hearts?

The Muslim

said: Reason is able to perceive the concept, but not the nature or reality,

and the difference between them is an essential difference for any rational

person.

I understand on

the basis of reason the possibility of the existence of billions upon

billions of stars in the galaxies of this vast universe, but can my reason

understand how that is or imagine it? Could I imagine the ratio of my size

to the size of the earth alone, let alone that which is far bigger of the

stars and planets around us? Not at all! I know of the existence of the soul

in bodies which, if it is removed the living man dies, and my reason

confirms the necessity of its existence and its essence as a concept and

idea, but could my reason imagine anything about its nature and essence, or

could I measure it or estimate it mathematically? Not at all!

This is the

difference between a concept that reason rejects and does not accept in the

first place, and a concept that reason does not reject, but it cannot

compare its description to anything that is conceivable or visible, with

regard to its nature and essence. So people’s minds would not be able to

imagine that concept, yet they affirm the soundness of the concept, and the

possibility – or necessity – of its existence.

So if you think

of the Christian belief in the Trinity, for example, you will see this

subtle difference, for they believe in something with regard to the divine

essence that is impossible, from a rational point of view, to exist as an

idea or concept.

It is not

rationally possible for three to be one or one to be three. This is what

makes you atheists able to prove the utter falseness of their Trinity.

But when you

come to examine the belief of monotheist Muslims in their Lord, you will

have no reason to criticise their belief in the essence and attributes of

their Lord. You have no criticism except that you cannot comprehend this

Lord and you cannot compare Him to something that you do comprehend and

understand. It is as if you are concluding that it is impossible for Him to

exist according to rational thinking, as is the case with the Trinity! They

say that it is a “too easy” answer to the problem, as if the simplicity of

the monotheistic belief in the unseen is something for which they should be

condemned and is an indication that it is false. They say that there is no

existing being that cannot be subject to the laws of the universe. It is as

if you travelled beyond this universe and saw that there was nothing beyond

it, so nothing could exist except something that is like what you are

subject to in this universe.

The difference

between us and you is that we accept what is indicated by every breath in

our own bodies, and by everything, small or great, in this precise and

well-made universe around us, so we do not attribute its existence except to

a Creator Who is greater than it and outside of it, Whose essence and

attributes cannot be compared to anything in it. As for you, because of your

corrupt way of reasoning and understanding, you insisted on denying the

Creator completely and rejecting any possibility of His existence, and you

insisted on putting something created and insignificant in His place, such

as genes, for no other reason except that you would be able to comprehend

its essence. It is as if your minds – which if they were able to understand

the language of monkeys, you would have heard them criticising your minds

and way of thinking – will not accept anything except that of which it can

imagine the nature and essence by means of comparing it to something similar

or equal.

So tell me, O

atheist, don’t you believe that this universe has a limit at which it stops?

Is that not so?

The atheist

said: Yes indeed.

The Muslim

said: Great! Even though that of which they have calculated the diameter is

the visible universe, and not the entire universe, and they have even

suggested that it is still expanding.

But this is not

my concern. My question to you is: do you have anything in this world to

which you could compare the limit of the universe at which it ends?

In other words:

have you seen in this world that which will help you to understand how that

limit, within which is the matter of the universe, could be, and after it

there is something that you do not know and cannot imagine, and you cannot

but accept the fact that it exists there, whatever that thing may be?

The atheist

thought for a while, then said: No doubt beyond this universe there is empty

space and infinite nothingness.

The Muslim

said: Surely you are lying! Do you know why?

The atheist

said: Why?

The Muslim

said: Because the one who bases certain knowledge on the phrase “no doubt”,

basing his certainty on an assumption for which he has no rational or

physical evidence, is a liar.

Whatever the

case, what I mean is that there is something beyond this universe and

outside of it, and you cannot imagine the nature of it, no matter what it

is, even though you affirm, on a rational basis, that there is a possibility

that something exists (beyond the universe), and that the nature of that

thing, by necessity, is different from what is within the universe.

Otherwise it would not be possible to say – from a linguistic point of view

– that this is the boundary at which the universe ends. Is that not so?

The atheist did

not answer.

The Muslim

said: So why do you insist that the mere fact that you are unable to imagine

the essence of God – which we believe is sublime and above the heavens and

all that exists, and His attributes cannot be denied on the basis of reason

and cannot be compared to any of His creation – is evidence that He cannot

exist?

End quote from

Islamweb.net on the following link:

http://articles.islamweb.net/media/index.php?page=article&lang=A&id=198814

Because of the

importance of your question, we will quote to you another debate with an

atheist:

Shaykh Muhammad

al-Ghazaali (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book Qadhaa’if al-Haqq

(p. 197-203):

I had a lengthy

discussion with an atheist in which I controlled myself and tried to be

patient, until he disclosed all the specious arguments that he had up his

sleeve, so that I could defeat with clear arguments and evidence what he

uttered of specious arguments.

He said: If

Allah created the universe, then who created Allah?

I said to him:

It is as if, by asking this question or raising this objection, you are

affirming that everything must have a Creator.

He said: Let us

avoid getting into a vicious circle; just answer my question.

I said to him:

There is no need for waffle. You think that this universe has no creator,

which means that He existed by Himself without any need for someone to bring

Him into existence, so why do you accept the view that this universe existed

by itself for eternity, yet you find it strange that religious people say

that the existence of God, Who created this universe, has no beginning?

It is the same

concept, so how come you believe yourself when you confirm this concept (of

existing from eternity, with regard to the universe), but you reject the

view of others when they affirm the same concept (with regard to God having

no beginning). If you think that to believe in a God Who has no creator is a

myth, then a universe that has no creator is also a myth, according to the

logic that you are following!

He said: We are

living in this universe and we can feel its existence, so we cannot deny

it!

I said to him:

Who asked you to deny the existence of the universe?

When we travel

in a car or ship or plane that is zooming along with us in a very terrifying

way, our question is not whether the car exists; rather our question is: is

it travelling by itself or does it have a driver or pilot who has

experience?

Therefore let

us go back to your first question, which is to be thrown back at you. Both

of us accept that there is a being that exists and there is no way to deny

it. You claim that it has no beginning as far as matter is concerned, and I

think that it has no beginning with regard to its creator.

If you want to

poke fun at a being that has no beginning, then poke fun at yourself first,

before you poke fun at religious people.

He said: Do you

mean that the rational assumption is the same for both groups?

I said: I am

going along with you for arguments sake, only to expose to you the flawed

and false arguments on which atheism is based. As for the rational

assumption, it is not the same for believers and disbelievers.

Imagine that

you and I are looking at a standing building. After thorough examination, I

can conclude that an engineer must have built it, but you think that some

lumber, metal, stone and paint took up the appropriate positions to prepare

this building for people to live in, all by themselves. The difference

between our views is like this: if I see a satellite orbiting in space, and

you tell me that it went into orbit by itself, without any supervision or

control, and I tell you that it was launched by rational people who are

controlling and supervising it, these rational assumptions are not the same.

In my case, my assumption is the ultimate truth that cannot be denied,

whereas your assumption is falsehood that is undoubtedly false. All the

atheists of the current era are very skilled in insulting us believers and

saying all manner of bad things about us, at the time when they describe

themselves as being smart, progressive and brilliant. We are living on an

earth that is comfortable and fit for living, beneath a star filled sky, and

we possess reason and intellect by means of which we can research and judge,

and with this reasoning and intellect we contemplate, reach conclusions,

discuss and believe. On the basis of this reason and intellect we refuse to

imitate blindly, just as we reject nonsensical ideas. If people want to make

fun of those whom they regard as backward, trapped in the past and rigid in

their thinking, they might as well also make fun of those who kill reason in

the name of reason, and stomp on the conclusions of science in the name of

science, for they – unfortunately – constitute the majority of atheists!

… and so on.

http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=218512

And Allah knows

best.