1
The infamous rock example.
Disbelievers posit that if God cannot create a rock heavier than He can lift, then He cannot do everything and is not God. And if God can create a rock heavier than He can lift, then He is not all powerful and He is not God. This is a negligent call to circular reasoning, and a misconception that stems from not understanding the nature and qualities of God, or Allah (swt), especially with regards to both the metaphysical and Islamic framework. To ask for God to create something greater than Himself, we might as well ask God to create another God entirely like Himself but that is stronger than Him. It is a circular reasoning and fallacy. There is a mistaken premise that ultimate power encompasses the ability to make oneself fail. Power and capability is by definition not measured by the ability to be able to make oneself fail, even when taken to the absolute. If we take a builder who is credited to be the ultimate builder and we ask him to create a home that is unsurpassable in majesty and strength, from which he does so, only to thereafter ask him to create one better than it or else say he was therefore never entitled to be the “ultimate builder” to begin with, or that only his “past self and not current self” was the “ultimate builder” and that he is not currently the ultimate builder anymore, we commit ourselves to a logical fallacy in saying his own power cannot beat his power as the “best.” And if he were to create a building better than it, the former would not have been the best in the first place, and if he could not create one better than it, then we would just argue that someone better than him may come along and do so – the circular reasoning would make the supposed claims appear true, since we’d assume his best creations should be surpassed continuously and there is no true “best” — therefore we never truly accept that he is the best or can create something that is the “best” to begin with.
Thus, in reality, the claim was incorrect to posit to begin with, masked behind words and rhetoric, or simply, a failure of reason. Such is the way active disbelievers are epistemologically false in raising contentions through imaginary alternatives, and why they may wrongfully think that just because they can say something that sounds coherent it is true. This is from the inability to escape the trap of their internal belief systems. In actuality, for our builder example and the rock example, in either case it is the same entity responsible for the ultimate creation and he will always be the superior no matter what. Maximal perfection is also the lack of any imperfection by definition, and it is the genuinely superior. One must understand Allah (swt)’s names and attributes as that which exists outside of Being to understand His quality of being the Ultimate, and the Perfection. The only way Islam and a metaphysical understanding of God can ever appear unsound is through fallacious reasoning masked behind rhetoric or incorrect propositions.
Understanding attempts to discredit Islam highlight how active Disbelievers may continue to project their shortcomings in even understanding Islam to a falsely created and inserted flaw in what they claim is from Islam. Disbelievers are such people as this who Reason Against Proof.
2
On atheism and Nietzche:
Before beginning, we must exclude those who identify as atheists simply because they have not studied Islam yet. This conversation applies to atheists who instead proclaim atheism and that they will never change their atheistic beliefs, or who insist on atheism despite being invited to learn about Islam.
Since such atheism is not founded in reason, as discussed extensively in the previous sections, what professed atheism always boils down to is an anthropomorphizing of God and His properties, assessing that reality is not from what an individual considers to be a Perfect Being, and that therefore God cannot exist. This is actually misotheism, the hatred of God by believing inappropriately from oneself that our reality could not be from a Perfect God, or that inversely, God has a moral fault in making the current reality we are living in. Atheism is actually the active form of Misotheism. Atheism, as extensively discussed, is not a belief rooted in reason (see Proof of Islam, or Disbelievers Reason Against Proof). As a belief from faith, it is actually the modern day emergent property of Misotheism, and the individual’s own lack of faith in God from a misappropriation of God’s properties according to one’s own limited perspective, or a lack of consideration of what God metaphysically is by failing to properly assess what the attributes of God are in provided belief systems (ie. Quran, Islam). As stated, misotheism is not the rational rejection of God, but the hatred or rejection of God rooted in what is often a purely moral argument, or an isolated thought process from the self without regard for metaphysical reality or what is suggested about metaphysical reality by Islam itself.
Atheism and Misotheism are representatives of the Straw Man fallacy: “a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be ‘attacking a straw man’”. Why misotheism is grossly negligent, other than being contradictory in its denial of God after attributing anthropomorphized properties to God, is in the fact that we cannot anthropomorphize God in such a way as to disbelieve from our ideas of what God would be like in the first place if we are atheist, as this cannot be based in reality. Otherwise, we would be agnostics, not atheists, and agnosticism is falsifiable as not adhering to reason as well if one believes that God can never be understood as existing, another projection on reality, but one rooted in the incorrect assessment of evidence, reason, and proof (see the sections Disbelievers Reason Against Proof and Proof of Islam). God either exists or does not exist in reality, highlighting the necessity of Pure Reason as discussed in True Finality to evaluate God’s existence. Disbelieving in God from our ideas of what God would be like makes our consciousness a determinant of the existence of God, which is delusional, whereas this is not the case if we believe in God and his attributes having evidence in the properties of existence or explicit physical signifiers (see the Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality or the discussion in Pearls to Reflect Upon for more details on the Quran addressing this). Islam aligns with metaphysics, whereas other presented belief systems fail this test (Metaphysics and God).
Enter Neitzche, one of the most influential victims of the straw man fallacy, who adopts a mistaken premise in the evaluation of God, appearing to be rational by rejecting his own mistaken premise, which is specifically targeting Christianity and the moral framework of Christian doctrine. Neitzche contradictorily asserts in his proposition of nihilism, in which religion is self-serving for the accreditation of morality and objective meaning, that the concept of God is an existence from our determined consciousnesses. He does not consider the possibility of God as an existence that we approach in understanding through reason, and meanwhile focuses on morality in an inappropriate way.
From Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Prologue, §§ 3–4):[232]
“I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? … All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughing stock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape … The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let you will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth … Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.”
After deleting the concept of God without having first considered the true reality of God from a metaphysical perspective — only his own presupposed understandings about Christianity — he then loops back to say that the concept of the Ubermensch or Overman will become the metaphysical standard of morality and true value. This is his realizing that there is no value of morality or even reason except from an accrediting source, and his attempt to recreate, delusionally, his own God in trying to rectify metaphysical meaning in doing anything or believing anything at all from a hypothetical atheist world. This is because to argue at all about God’s existence or nonexistence is already futile, meaningless, and defeatist in a non-theist world, as believing and disbelieving in God are equally inconsequential anyways, therefore making any assertion as to what is “correct” about the belief in God absurd, and why again, this is a twisted misotheism.
“A nihilist is a man who judges that the real world ought not to be and that the world as it ought to do not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: this ‘in vain’ is the nihilists’ pathos—an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche, KSA 12:9 [60], taken from The Will to Power, section 585, translated by Walter Kaufmann.
Nihilism is a form of explicit misotheism and Nietzsche’s vendetta against Christianity. Nihilism is a mistaken rejection of God out of one’s own concept that the origin of God in others is false based on subsequent anthropomorphized properties. Nihilism as a concept never actually addresses the metaphysical reality of if God exists or does not exist, which to begin with, Nietsche readily admitted, and in so doing, misotheistically rejected God from believing to have rejected others’ rendition of God (eg. Christian rendition) or anthropomorphized understanding of that God. This is the contradictory assertion as necessarily results from an atheist perspective on reality, although more so at its roots, there is a continuous, dishonest interplay of hypothetical atheism and misotheism in an overall failure to assess God as an actual part of reality. There is an explicit lack of actual reasoning or critical thinking on the matter, the gap formed by which is filled with moral hypotheses in a self-serving reality. Nihilism contradictorily underscores morality of the self over reason from the self in order to be a self satisfactory, misotheistic solution in the conflation of Man’s reality as wanting to be distinct from God. The Will to Power, Overman, and following ideologies represent the condition of an atheist who when paradoxically accepting an immoral world strives to create a metaphysical source for himself, and in so doing, values his own wants and woes over the true reality of existence in his conflation of self (see the section The Truth. The Quran. Islam).
3
On Morality and Religion:
Can non-religious people have morals and be good? Would you deny that a nonreligious person can be a good person?
Non-religious people can have morals. Where they are lacking is reason to substantiate their morals. Reason underscores morality as a metaphysical accreditor, and it is why reason itself is equivalent to sincerity and morality, while what is truly moral is at once also from pure reason.
Morality alone is not a religious argument. Humans have morality intrinsically (Islamically, it is part of fitrah and explained by how one asks “for what reasons are certain things moral or immoral?”). Thus, the issue becomes the accreditation or validity of morals. Therefore, the question about having morality is again one that evaluates soundness in judgement and reason. To the Muslim, morality and reason are perfectly aligned, one and the same, and are Perfect as God determines. What is reasonable is moral, and what is moral is reasonable.
The reasoning of a nonbeliever’s morality is rooted inherently in social mores, contemporary standards, Ego, and personal interpretation. This means that a person can be “good” but that their basis for being good, and goodness itself, has no objective validation or a validation tied to the reality of Being outside of the self (ie. ontological or metaphysical validation). This rejection of validation is ultimately a rejection of absolute or true morality, since goodness does not come from Goodness, meaning that morality, from their perspective, is actually nonexistent or an accessory to reality. It is fair for people in wartime, for example, to go on pillaging and raping while morally claiming that to be the standard of their time, as Disbelievers would have it, despite trying to distance themselves from this because of their own more egoistic notions as they go further and further inwards in saying that only what they determine to be moral is what is moral. This demonstrates that such a morality, while being superficially true, is inherently baseless. Funneling this down, functionally, a nonbeliever can be a good person based on what they evaluate to be moral from a social and personal standpoint, even as there is an overlap with what is truly accredited, or what is from Islam. But intrinsically, and very significantly, what it means is that disbelievers ultimately believe, whether they are aware or unaware, or accepting or unaccepting of the fact, that evil acts are equal to saintly deeds in the materialistic pool of matter that is otherwise the universe. Macroscopically, their belief in morality is always actually a self-serving delusion, as they have covered up the truth of God with how reasons dictating right and wrong, and their reasons itself, should be accredited. This is an emphasis on how what is moral is from reason and how what is from reason is moral, and Disbelievers with regards to the matter have a deficiency in reason in recognizing that God exists (see the sections Disbelievers Reason Against Proof and the Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality). This is why morality and reason are often dysfunctionally discussed as two separate things, when they are the same (also refer to the section Who is God?).
This discussion can also be compared to the philosophical concept of “the self and the other,” and how something to be valid as unique to the “self” as it pertains to our knowledge of it must have an “other.” In this case, if we are the only one’s validating the self of what is a moral compass, without the other of a God or judgement ever coming into play, there is actually no definition of the self’s existence or determination of morality as independent from the fabric of reality where there is the occurrence of immoral acts without overt moral consequence. The “other” in the form of other humans can legitimize social norms, but this social bubble as it occurs from the presence of other selves inversely legitimizes a forced recognition of morality’s absence, in the friction of opposing views to the social norms or differences in opinion even within the same bubble or from different bubbles of different cultures and times. Meaning, there is no such thing as morality or moral arguments to be made from the self except that it comes equally from a reality in which morality is then absent as determined by the self. Problematically, the disbeliever believes there is no morality intrinsic to reality, so they simultaneously reject the reality of their own morality. Moreover, if they believe themselves, or their consciousnesses, to be God or the center of the universe, they reject the validity of the reality outside of themselves and their overt power to cause moral consequence as that which has true moral consequence — another rejection of their own morality’s permanence and instead, its self-serving localization. This paradox is only resolved in believing in an “other” in the form of God, because God is metaphysical resolution (see the Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality), and what we see in our reality is that God has made moral consequence — the validation of morality — in the forms of a Day of Judgement and the existence of Paradise and Hell. This Moral Finality aligns with Metaphysical Finality and God.
To reiterate, what disbelief in God entails, very importantly, is the lack of accreditation to morals, as well as the lack of moral consequence. Without moral accreditation or moral consequence, there is no such thing as morality or values that can be determined to be right or wrong, even though they are in reality since reasons are attached to them by nature of the metaphysical Fitrah of Islam. Without continuing in the chain of Reason in the Fitrah, there is no repercussion for wrongful acts or acceptance of righteous acts over the wrongful acts, rendering them equal and useless to the self. If there is only the self to determine what is proper, that is a contradiction, because there is no reason for the self to have anything that is proper to begin with except as it is simultaneously shaped by what is around them, as discussed with the self and the “other.” Moreover, when we then evaluate how reason exists, in order to supply ourselves with morality, we again simultaneously and necessarily move to the conclusion that God exists in the synchronization of reason to morality (see the Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality). The only way that “morality” can exist in the self as part of a social bubble is as a “self preservation” of one’s self in a society or culture. Therefore, in such cases of atheism, morality should not be misconstrued as anything except self preservation or self satisfaction.
“This [Qur’an] is enlightenment for mankind and guidance and mercy for a people who are certain [in faith]. Or do those who commit evils think We will make them like those who have believed and done righteous deeds – [make them] equal in their life and their death? Evil is that which they judge. And Allah created the heavens and earth in truth and so that every soul may be recompensed for what it has earned, and they will not be wronged” [45:20-22].
4
Why does Hell exist?
In line with the moral projecting of misotheists or professed atheists, the Disbeliever will contest that Hell cannot exist from God due to it being too extreme as a punishment in terms of morality, and that therefore, God is not real or should not be worshipped.
This is a refusal from their own misunderstandings about God from reason, their confusion about objective morality, and their misunderstandings about morality from the very reasons by which things are determined to be moral or immoral in the first place.
There is a lot more about morality and fairness that isn’t encompassed by what the disbeliever has considered, much less the hypocrisy of having morality in the first place when it is, in the hypothetical atheist understanding, neither absolute nor objective due to there being no true moral consequence or moral reaction with the world at large. Genocide and more is truly inconsequential in atheism, and saying otherwise is a contradictory lie for atheists to not be swamped by their own nihilism or other Disbelief, which also does not even apply in a metaphysically objective understanding of the world, since the resolving ubermensch concept founded in atheism is contradictory in requiring a moral locus in a reality in which it is hypothetically, inherently nonexistent (and this is the point where those arguments such as morality as defined by the welfare of society at large is brought up, etc. etc. and many counterexamples a well informed Muslim theologian or philosopher understands has incoherent roots better than atheists themselves).
In Islam, with a general understanding, there is a bit of a karmic return where man gets what good he strives for.
“Or has he not been informed of what was in the scriptures of Moses And [of] Abraham, who fulfilled [his obligations] – That no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another And that there is not for man except that [good] for which he strives And that his effort is going to be seen – Then he will be recompensed for it with the fullest recompense And that to your Lord is the finality” [53:36-42].
If you did good all your life to others thinking that you’d be doing well in life, then good for you. You’ve gotten what you’ve strived for and helped others in life. That doesn’t mean anything about the hereafter, because you’ve attained what good you’ve strived for and you’re doing it for what, self satisfaction, your own whims, what you determine to be moral? On what basis is your foundation for morality and action, yourself? Do you egocentrically believe yourself to be the moral determinant of the universe? Or do you yourself deny the hereafter?
So when it comes to denying the hereafter, an atheist gets the good in life that he strives for, and should be pleased with that since that is what they strived for. Meanwhile, they deny any goodness that might come in the hereafter, any salvation, and look to people whom life has dealt a bad hand to as simply their share of the world. After it, what is left there, nothingness? The fact that it isn’t nothingness, given the reality of paradise and hell, in an atheist perspective, means that they’ve professed a delusion and what the reality is, is what will remain no matter what their delusions are.
Meanwhile, what is fair for those who believed in true justice in life? Who actually believed that things like genocide are objectively wrong? From a moral and rational standpoint, the disbeliever has absolutely no grounds to contest the existence of Hell.
Only your own beliefs are returned to you, and everything is weighed fairly. And it must be understood what Hell exists for then. It isn’t for reform, but the resting place of those who were unjust or believe that life simply is as it is, and in other words say, if you find yourself in Hell, that’s just how it is. Again, there is only equal return for what you yourself believe. A moral issue there for those that deny Hell is nonexistent.
On the other hand, one can learn perfectly well in life what is right and wrong, true and untrue with regards to religion, as we have done throughout these sections, and God guides those who sincerely try and sincerely try to approach belief. Moreover, if anyone truly cannot reach the message of Islam, then that isn’t held against them, so no worries. Arguing that we have no true free will to accept or deny belief is not an excuse, outside of the truly mentally handicapped.
If you want true answers about Islam and to mine the depths of moral philosophy, the information is out there. And sincerely, it would be of great benefit to simply read the Quran, it explains clearly. You can begin by reading Surah Al Muminun, The Believers (https://quran.com/23) or many other Surahs.
Muslim Lad 