Philosophy

 

Introduction

I want to bring to the forefront a fundamental question: How do we understand things? How do we determine what is true? Before we discuss conclusions, we must examine the tools by which we arrive at them.

I once witnessed a riddle: "Can Allah make the eye of a needle large enough for Him to pass through?"

If Allah has power over all things, does that mean every conceivable statement describes something He is capable of bringing about?

That was the first logical conflict I had to grapple with: if Allah's power is absolute, how could I claim there was anything He wouldn't do? I lacked the precise vocabulary to explain it at the time, but I felt secure in my instinct: this riddle was simply beneath Him. Yet, I struggled to articulate why without sounding like I was placing a limit on the Creator's power.

The question contains assumptions of its own. It imagines Allah as possessing size, location, and spatial extension, as though the Creator were one object among other objects within the created order. Before asking whether Allah could pass through the eye of a needle, the question has already placed Him inside the universe.

The problem, therefore, is not whether Allah's power is limited. The problem is whether the question itself describes something meaningful. Can a contradiction become a reality? Can something be both created and uncreated? Can the Creator, who is not contained by space, become a thing contained within space?

This is an example of a miscategorisation. The answer to the riddle is not that Allah lacks power. The answer is that the question fundamentally misunderstands what Allah is.

Without realising it, I had stumbled upon philosophy.

Philosophy at its best does not pretend to answer every possible question. It teaches us to distinguish between genuine inquiries and confused riddles that only appear meaningful. It clears the ground, disciplines thought, and pushes human reason as far as it can honestly go, and then it recognizes exactly where reason ends.

Philosophy begins when we stop merely asking questions and begin examining whether the questions themselves are built upon sound foundations.

Necessary Being

Let us examine how someone unfamiliar with these abstract ideas may reason toward the existence of One God.

Imagine a line of people where each person must ask permission from the person behind them before they can act. We have all experienced a small version of this: waiting for approval, waiting for a manager, waiting for someone else to make the decision. There is always another step before anything can happen.

Imagine the chain never ends: Person 1 waits for Person 2, who waits for Person 3, who in turn waits for Person 4, stretching backward into eternity. The permission never arrives. The chain contains only dependence. Every person receives authority from someone else, but no one possesses authority in themselves. There is no one that can give permission, which means, nothing can begin.

But things are happening. The universe exists. I know I exist. So reality cannot consist only of dependent things receiving existence from other dependent things forever.

Now imagine twisting that chain into a circle: Person 1 waits for Person 2, who waits for Person 3, until the loop eventually returns to Person 1. But this does not solve the problem. Person 1 is still waiting. The circle contains dependence, but no foundation for that dependence. There is still no permission giver.

The mistake is beginning with the things that require a permission rather than the thing that provides it. If the chain contains only dependent links, the total weight of the chain remains unsupported. Nothing can ultimately begin. Therefore, reality cannot consist only of dependent things.

That independent source is what we mean by God.

Can There Be Two Necessary Beings?

If there were two, there would need to be something that makes them different.

If we start with a baseline of identical twins, we know that in our world, "identical" twins are not actually identical at all. They occupy different spaces, think different thoughts, and experience different moments. But for a necessary being, the identity would have to be absolute. One cannot know more than the other. One cannot be stronger than the other.

But then, how are they different?

If one existed in a different time from the other, then one would be left behind. If they occupied different dimensions, then there would exist a boundary that neither could go beyond. But absolute necessity cannot depend upon something else, nor can it be limited by anything external, whether it be by time, space, or dimension. So, even if we insisted there were two, they would have to be perfectly identical, occupying the exact same time, the exact same space, and the exact same essence.

Yet, if something is identical in every single way, it is no longer two distinct things. That is simply one thing you are describing twice.

Therefore, the source of all existence cannot be divided into competing necessary realities. One necessary being. One ultimate foundation. One God.

The Hidden Complexity of Simple Words

As we have just seen, simple words can carry enormous ideas.

A single word may represent years of thought, countless assumptions, and entire philosophical systems. For a simple word to communicate a complete meaning, many hidden concepts must be attached to it. Eventually, these ideas become compressed into a single term. That term becomes a convenience; it allows complex thoughts to be communicated quickly.

But there is a danger.

As words become familiar, the complexity contained within them becomes invisible. The word remains, but the structure beneath it is forgotten. A person may use a word fluently while never examining the assumptions hidden inside it.

This is why language can enlighten, but it can also mislead. A person can learn complex terminology and create the appearance of knowledge without possessing true understanding. The difficulty we face is not always learning more words. Sometimes, it is recovering the meaning that was lost inside them.

Once we know from first principles that a complex concept is sound, we can safely compress those words into shorthand:

• The Cosmological Foundation: An endless chain of dependent things still has no foundation. Reality requires an uncaused, independent Source holding up the entire stack.

• Unicity: Multiple independent sources are impossible. If there were two, they would limit each other, meaning neither would be absolute.

• The Conclusion: Reality necessitates a singular, uncaused, necessary being: the monotheistic contingency argument.

This ultimate truth is presented succinctly in the Quran in Surah Al-Ikhlaṣ (112:1–4), where every single verse maps directly to a core premise of the Necessary Being proof:

«قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ»

"Say, 'He is Allah, [who is] One,'"

Directly mirrors the principle of Unicity: a Necessary Being cannot be multiple, because plurality introduces division, limits, and mutual dependence.

«اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ»

"Allah, the Eternal Refuge [the Absolute Sustainer upon whom all creation depends],"

Establishes the Cosmological Foundation: Al-Ṣamad is the ultimate anchor, the non-dependent source holding up the entire chain of contingent existence.

«لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ»

"He neither begets nor is born,"

Affirms an Uncaused Origin: 'Not born' means He has no cause nor was anything before Him, while 'does not beget' means His essence cannot be split, divided, or replicated into derived parts.

«وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ»

"Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

Guards against a Category Error: He shares no traits, dimensions, or characteristics with created things, remaining entirely transcendent above the physical universe.

In Islamic philosophy and theology, this Necessary Being is formally termed Wājib al-Wujūd (واجب الوجود): the Existent whose presence is absolute and self-subsisting.