Al-Babarti's Summary of The Necessity of Knowing Allah ﷻ by Evidence

This means that according to them, there is no apparent text in the Qur’an and Sunnah that says “It is necessary for you to believe in the existence of Allah ﷻ through evidence/argument”. Now, because there is no such apparent text, they hold that it is not necessary to do so. Thus, if someone says “I believe in Allah ﷻ, His Prophet,…” and so on without any evidence, then that should be sufficient for them not to be held accountable for their beliefs. They will not attempt to see other texts that indirectly point towards this position, because they abstain from interpretation. ↩︎

Tariqah, or “The Way” is a term used by the Sufis to describe the journey that a man undertakes to purify his soul. Thus, they are called Ahl at-Tariqah, People of The Way. ↩︎

All of these are terms which the Sufis use to describe different states a disciple faces. Explaining them is out of the scope of this article. The main point is that according to the Sufis, the true evidence of God’s existence can only be attained once one purifies their soul by struggling against it. This cleans the souls and prepares it for whatever wisdom Allah ﷻ wants to reveal to it in various forms. This is what’s known as Religious Experience, which, according to them, is empirical evidence of God’s existence. ↩︎

They are essentially saying the same thing as the rest of the Sufis. The difference is that the majority of the Sufis hold that religious experience has many forms, but this group says that the only acceptable form is Ilham, which is when Allah ﷻ casts some wisdom directly into the heart of the serveant, which manifests itself as an idea or a very strong motivation or clarity. ↩︎

Kalam is the science that uses rational premises or logical propositions to defend religious positions. The most famous figures from this science are Imam al-Ghazali and Imam al-Razi, for example. This science was developed as a response to Greek philosophy and the heresy it brought along with it. Often, Kalam is used as a science synonymous with Aqeedah (belief), which is most probably what the author means here, judging from his later discussions in the book. ↩︎

Knowledge is broadly divided into two categories: Necessary and Evidential. Necessary knowledge is that which is known by necessity, i.e., without evidence. For example, you don’t need evidence to believe that the “part” is smaller than the “whole”. Contrarily, evidential knowledge requires some argument or evidence, like the knowledge that angels exist needs to be proved by some evidence and isn’t known by default. According to the majority of the people of Kalam, God’s existence isn’t necessary, and must be proved through evidence. ↩︎

The transmitted evidence is anything that is known through testimony, like most of history is known through the testimonies of the people during that time. ↩︎

According to the people of Kalam, you can’t say that Allah ﷻ exists because the Qur’an says so. This is because evidence in the Qur’an is transmitted evidence, and can only be taken as “evidence” once you believe it is true, and someone who doesn’t believe in God obviously does not believe that. So, to prove the existence of God, you have to use something external to the Qur’an and the Prophet, which is either empirical evidence or rational. Since you can’t see God, you are only left with rational evidence. ↩︎

Once they establish the necessity of rational evidence, Imam al-Babarti mentions three classical arguments to prove the existence of God: The possibility of the universe, the contingency argument, and a mixture of both. The possibility argument says (in short) that existence can be classified into three categories: necessary, impossible, and possible. Since impossible existence doesn’t exist, let’s rule that out. Now, if the universe consisted entirely of possible existences, then it would necessitate that either there is an infinite regress of dependent things, or that there is a circular dependency of dependent things, both of which are impossibilities. This implies that there must be a necessary existence (God) that is required to sustain the universe and break the two fallacies. ↩︎

The contingency argument states that the universe came to exist some time ago, and everything that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. Then, the cause itself has the same two possibilities, and the same goes for its cause, and so on. This cannot go on forever (infinite temporal regress) since infinite regress is mathematically impossible if it extends in the past. Thus, a cause must exist that itself has no cause, and because it has no cause itself, it must necessarily remain existent forever (pre-eternal). That is God. ↩︎