On Tawhid—An Analysis of the Concept of Divine Oneness

Philosophy 306, University of Michigan, Dearborn

This paper will discuss the unicity, or oneness, of God. This is the first of the “five fundamentals” of Abd al-Jabbar, who was a representative of the Mu’tazilite school of Islamic philosophy, the rationalists. The other fundamentals include 1) Unicity, or oneness (tawhid ), 2) Theodicy, 3) Threat and Reward, 4) The intermediate position, and 5) Free will. Abd al-Jabbar believed that these are the very foundation of Islamic religion and “Anyone who opposes them is in great error and may commit unbelief or grave sin…” I will restrict myself to discussing only divine unicity insofar as I understand it.

The Arabic word for the Islamic principle of unicity is tawhid. It is also the first in a list of six articles of faith (eman) and it is probably the most important Islamic doctrine. I am not aware of any Islamic school of thought that does not espouse it. It is the absolute oneness of God (Allah). First I will try to describe it and then to analyze it in relation to other religions’ concepts of unicity.

The doctrine of unicity states that God is One absolutely, the ultimate form of monism. In contrast to the Christian doctrine of the trinity, for example, tawhid contains no plurality or multiplicity in any sense. According to the Muslim philosopher Al Kindi, God gives being to other things only when He gives them unity. And he is the only being whose nature consists of such Oneness. This doctrine becomes especially interesting when the exposition of tawhid is examined. It is argued by some schools of philosophy that not even God’s attributes can share in His eternal Oneness. If they did then there would be plurality within the nature of God himself, which is impossible. Therefore, God’s word, his intellect, his wisdom, his goodness, his justice, etc., must all have been subsequently created by God, and also subordinate to his essence. This, I think, is a false and absurd dichotomy, for one’s attributes necessarily comprise one’s essence. And yet this understanding of unicity seems to lend itself to the dichotomy in order to avoid plurality. Such a notion of oneness has no analogical reality in the natural world or in the universe (which I suppose is the point); all entities necessarily have their attributes, and they do not negate the unicity of those entities that are comprised of them.

By extension, the question of the eternality of the Qur’an became part of the debate, because, some theologians argued that the Qur’an must have been a created thing in order to avoid the same problem of plurality within the essence of God. The theoretical possibility of one or multiple uncreated, eternal things, necessarily allows for the co-eternality of the Qur’an, as is true for the full complement of God’s divine attributes. But this is not an intellectual problem for all Muslims who believe that divine unicity can encompass its attributes and qualities; it is in them that His oneness is most glorious.

Now let us go a little deeper into the question of unicity and examine it more critically, first in terms of the Islamic notion (utter transcendence), then in terms of the pantheistic (utter immanence. In what ways is it similar and dissimilar to other theistic systems of the present day and of the past? What are the philosophical criteria by which we can analyze them –and it? ). Is absolute unicity philosophically reasonable and defensible? I will argue that they are not.

We have already seen that there are contingent questions associated with the doctrine of tawhid: one of the attributes of God and their respective eternality; one, of the sole-nests of His creatorship. These we will analyze, for they are interrelated, and the notion of unicity depends on how one answers them. How much diversity, if any, can be tolerated within the doctrine of tawhid with respect to answering these questions? How much can be tolerated in a broader understanding of divine oneness? Certainly Islamic unicity is the strictest among the monotheistic religions. How does it compare to pantheism?

Here let us do a simple overview of philosophical oneness. Then let us attempt to define various points on a continuum of oneness starting with Islam and other religions with a doctrine of unicity. By finding their respective points on the continuum, we shall be able to compare them and consider their degree of absoluteness in relation to the others. Finally, we shall consider whether it, the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid, is philosophically plausible and necessary and whether it is incumbent upon Christian theists in order to maintain a coherent monotheism. My answer to the former question is “no”. My answer to the latter is also “no”. I will argue that, philosophically, there is no such thing as absolute unity.

Observe the continuum below. Everything on the right side of the middle point (5) represents some form of unicity, and on the left, polytheism. On the far right extreme (10) there is the absolutely absolute unicity of pantheism. Left of that we have Neo-Platonism (9) which is another form of pantheism, and the monotheistic systems of Islam (8), Judaism (7) and Deism (6). Left of those there is the plural oneness of Christianity (5) that most Muslims do not consider “oneness” at all.

I_______________________________________I_______________________________________I

                               Polytheism                                                5             6            7            8            9           10 

Theologically, Islam represents one of the religions on the furthest extreme on the right with its doctrine of tawhid, or the absolute unicity of Allah. All orthodox Muslims confess it in their creed and defend it vigorously. Simply stated, Allah has no partners nor associates, no divisions, no multiplicity, no plurality, no persons, no facets of being. He is absolute in every possible way, and not compound or complex in any way whatsoever. As we have seen, in some schools Allah’s attributes cannot be attributed to Him as innate and coeternal qualities for, if they could, the purists assert, they would constitute complexity or compoundedness, and that would suggest diversity, which is unacceptable. Here is where two of Allah’s necessary attributes enter the discussions: eternality and creatorness. First, since Allah is one, he is also eternal. Second, he was/is the creator of everything that exists except himself. Thus, Allah was/is the eternal creator. Nothing else could be co-eternal nor be any other source of existence or creation. If any of Allah’s attributes were innate then they were both eternal and uncreated, which is impossible. But nothing besides Allah can create. Therefore, Allah must have created his own attributes and then ascribed them to himself.

But there is a logical problem here. This line of reasoning, by virtue of the strictness of the doctrine of tawhid, creates a false dichotomy between the essence of God and His attributes – those very qualities which define Him and set him apart from His creation and which sets the tawhid apart from the unicity of pantheism. For another of His attributes is transcendence, and if at one time Allah’s essence had no attributes, it follows that there once was a time when God had nothing that described or defined Him whatsoever. (Here we note that it is common for Muslims to state that Allah is wholly and entirely Other; whatever can be thought about Him and said about Him, He is not that, but something else. Thus, Allah is not merely transcendent but absolutely transcendent. But immediately following this assertion the very person who asserted it will begin to describe Allah by his attributes. And thus the problem of positive vs. negative statements about God come into the discussion, and we can observe the necessary connections between this problem and the doctrine of tawhid). It also follows logically that at the time when He had no attributes God could neither have been eternal nor a creator, so he could not have created even his own attributes, in this line of reasoning.

Two more things stand out at this point. Something without innate attributes, qualities, properties, or defining characteristics of any kind, is not just “other”, it is “nothing”. It is logically impossible to have the existence of something that, by definition, has nothing meaningful by which to describe it or think about it. Something that is completely transcendent, or “other” is either completely unknowable or it cannot exist. I would argue for the latter.

In reality, people can say that God is completely “other”, but they cannot mean it, because such a being, if he exists, cannot even be known even by divine revelation. The human mind can only think of things that fit within the parameters of known or knowable attributes and properties. A being that is utterly transcendent is actually impossible to conceive except as an abstraction. This is one of the categories of logical problems that flow from the doctrine of Tawhid as I understand it. If a person were consistent with this doctrine – which I don’t think is possible – it would lead him to the point of nonsense.

Now let us compare the pantheistic understanding of divine unicity. Pantheism is represented best by Hinduism, but also by Neo-Platonism and other philosophical systems (e.g. that of Spinoza). It is very different from Islam and the other monotheistic systems, and yet it is even more profoundly absolute than tawhid, because in this system absolutely everything is absolutely One. For this reason, and because there is no personal God in pantheism as there is in monotheism, philosopher Francis Schaeffer prefers to call it “paneverythingism”. It is also known as complete immanence in contrast to the transcendence of some forms of Islam. Pantheistic systems, therefore, believe that everything is in God and is God. Not that everything is a god, as in animism, but that God is utterly and comprehensively everything, of which everything else is a part or a manifestation. In Neo-Platonism the philosopher Plotinus conceived of them as are “emanations” from God like rays from the sun. What appears to us to be diversity is only that—an appearance. In pantheism there is no actual diversity at all. And again, in this system God is not personal in any sense, but is more like the “Force” in the movie Star Wars. He/ it is also not moral in any proper sense, so there is really no Good or Evil because there is no true basis for them. This, of course, is problematic in itself, but space does not permit us to discuss this here.

The problem that we shall concern ourselves with here is this: With such a concept of unicity there is no explanation for the diversity that we experience in reality. Why? Something that is so absolutely One cannot produce diversity nor explain the even more complex problem of unity in diversity. How could it when it has no diversity within itself? It is no good to say that this God is omnipotent; for even an omnipotent being cannot create something it does not possess itself, which is not part of its essence, definition, nature of substance. For the same reason, a good God cannot become or produce evil; a strong God cannot become weak; a completely omniscient God (that is also infinite) cannot divest himself of his knowledge and wisdom; nor can he abandon his own attributes.

By the same token, if God had no diversity or plurality within his nature, he could not and would not have put diversity into his creation, nor would there be any explanation for the incredible array of particulars that we observe in reality. And yet, this is what we find in the totality of our experience: diversity and plurality. Yet these are not without unity. Rather, the staggering array of particulars we find in the universe are all unified within their many categories, and these are unified in the one God. Thus there is breathtaking diversity within cosmic unity and a profound unity encompassing diversity.

Either these particulars are some form of illusion, as it is believed in pantheism, or they are real. If they are real then there must be an adequate explanation for their existence as well as for the unity that encompasses them, as all the branches and roots of a tree stem from just one trunk. When we consider that tree there is obvious diversity/plurality within its oneness. Indeed, a tree with no branches or roots is hardly a tree at all. So it is with a great many things in our universe, and we are hard-pressed to find exceptions. These must reflect a Being that has diversity within Himself, for a Being without it cannot be the source of such diversity, and just as a God without glory or beauty could not produce either. Indeed, the very presence of diversity within the multiple attributes of God proves this.

We have already shown that they must be innate to the essence of God; they could not have been created. At the very least these comprise “facets” of God’s oneness. Might he also have “persons”? I believe so. Only the plural oneness of the trinity can solve this problem, and without it we could not have the richness of life that we do. I concur with Francis Schaeffer when he wrote about the metaphysical necessity, “Without the high order of personal unity and diversity as given in the Trinity, there are no answers.”



Bibliography

1. Abd al-Jabbar, Book of the Five Fundamentals: A Translation, from the coursepack used as a text.

2. DeBoer, T.J.: The History and Philosophy of Islam. Toronto, Ontario: General Publishing Co., 1967.

3. The Jeruslam Tract, author unknown. A ten-page handout provided in class from a larger volume.

4. Schaeffer, Francis: He Is There and He Is Not Silent, p. 8-9. Carol Stream, Il: Tyndale House Publishers, 1972.

5. Geisler, Norman: History and Philosophy of Apologetics, pp. 173-193. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Co., 1976.

6. Nash, Ronald: The History of Philosophy and Christian Thought (lecture series on cassette). Orlando: Reformed Theological Seminary and Ligonier Ministries, 1991.

7. The Cambridge companion to Arabic philosophy. Cambridge. UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2005

Unplanned Evangelism in a Sunni Mosque

On this occasion I visited a Sunni mosque right outside the campus of Wayne State University in Detroit. I'd been to other mosques closer to home before (mostly Shiite), but never to this one. It is not my regular habit to visit mosques, but when I received an invitation to attend a special open house from the WSU Muslim Student Association, that was just the reason I needed. I felt prompted by the Lord to go, and I decided to go as a learner. Maybe I would see some students I know or meet some new ones with whom I could stay in contact. And who could tell what the Lord might do? I have some of the most interesting encounters like that, and this visit was no exception.
First I called a couple InterVarsity students to go with me who are often up for some personal evangelism and, I hoped, for something like this: Amir and Dwight. I was not disappointed. So together we walked from campus three blocks to arrive at the Islamic Learning Center at about 1:00 p.m. just in time for prayers. We were greeted warmly by several Muslim men and invited to observe the prayers which were just beginning. At first there were only a few dozen praying in scattered places on the carpeted floor without furniture. But by later the room was full with around 200 men doing salat--ritual prayers all facing in one direction in perfect unison. They were mostly Sunni I guessed, but since it is the only mosque in the area there had to be some Shiites in there. Many were Arab or South Asian, but many were African American as well. During the prayers the three of us sat on the floor near the wall halfway back, quite conspicuously not joining in, but praying to Jesus under our breath nevertheless. While we sat together I tried to read the faces of my two young cohorts--who had never been to a mosque before--to try to gauge their apprehension and explain some of the things they were observing in quiet whispers. Halfway through the prayers a visiting teacher recognized the non-Muslim visitors (there was one other) and gave what I thought was a rather sound talk on the importance of being a responsible father (an important topic that many Christians need to hear, and probably chosen for this mixed audience). But I was also surprised to hear the speaker honor Ashura and Imam Hussein in the presence of the many Sunnis that were there.
After the last round of prayers we were invited to share a meal with the supplicants. We ate on white plastic table cloths rolled out on the floor in two parallel rows. Plates of delicious rice and meat were served, and men ate either with plastic ware or with their hands. It was after the meal that it got more interesting. Just when I thought I was going to leave without any significant conversations (Amir and Dwight had already left by this time), I was greeted by two students named Bilal and Abdullah whom I knew. At first we were only making small talk while we stood there together. But this led somehow to the question of whether God could make a rock too big for him to lift. The consensus between the two students was affirmative--after all, "God can do anything." I extended the question by asking whether God can come to earth as a man, and the reluctant answer was again affirmative. "But why would God do something that made him less than he was", posed Abdullah. Before I could even answer there were three more young men very pleasantly joining in on this conversation, asking to be brought up-to-date. I suggested that we sit down on the floor, and there we were...an older Christian man encircled by 5 (and sometimes 6 or 7) young Muslim inquirers. One of the new participants began controlling the agenda of the conversation, and for the next 40 minutes he very humbly and politely asked me to clearly explain the fundamental Christian doctrines--the trinity, revelation, the authority of the Bible, the prophecies of Deuteronomy 18 and John 16 (which Muslims believe point to Mohammed), and the problem of sin. I won't go into all the substance, but I was so impressed by their posture of learning and respect in asking their questions. This is not always how it goes. Pray that the Lord will give them divine understanding of all that was explained to them. Praise to Jesus!

Pray for Abdullah, Bilal, Waseem, Ashraf, Monsour and Nouman.