TürkçeSOME FİNDİNGS AND CRİTİCİSMS ABOUT THE PHİLOSOPHİCAL FOUNDATİONS OF UNBELİEF
It is very difficult to make evaluations within the framework of an article about the philosophical foundations of disbelief. The more general the title, the broader is the discussion of the topic. For this reason, a general approach covering the historical process limits our ability to be fair on the subject. Therefore, in order not to be exposed to this danger, we would like to narrow the subject a little more and evaluate the philosophical reasons for disbelief from three main aspects. These, in fact, can be seen as the most basic philosophical approaches that we can somehow reduce all other justifications to themselves. In short, we will consider the philosophical foundations of disbelief on these three lines: epistemological, ontological and psychological.
Another issue that we believe deserves attention in the context of these issues is that this problem is as old as the history of religions, like the history of philosophy. In the context of the religion of Islam, the situation can be traced back to the creation of Adam. When we start the Tawhid case with the story of Adam's creation and his presentation to the angels by Allah, it can be said that the problem of denial and apostasy [unfaithfulness] emerged simultaneously with the rebellion of Iblis that day.(1) In the sense that the religion of Islam is used in the Qur'an's Hajj Surah, it should be understood as the common name of all religions dating back from Adam to the Prophet Muhammad.(2) Since Islam means believing in (tawhid), unbelief and polytheism are the most fundamental problems that religion has been fighting to eliminate from the very beginning. In terms of Islamic theology, disbelief and loss of the ore of faith is the greatest disaster that can happen to humankind.(3) Because this situation is the biggest obstacle in front of both his worldly and otherworldly bliss. Despite this, it is a historical fact that Islam tolerates religious or non-religious understandings that do not threaten its own existence.(4).
The emergence of the science of Kalam [Theology], which is called "ashraf al-ulum" [the most proper science] in the scale of Islamic sciences, also means not only contenting with revelation but also mobilizing mental possibilities against unbelief.(5) When it comes to the religion of Islam, religion cannot be thought of independently of reason, and reason cannot be thought of independently of religion.(6) Because the first condition of being taxpayer and responsible is to be smart
(1) Qur’an (Bakara 2:30-36). Akseki, calls the religion of Adam, the first human and the first prophet, as "Din-i tawhid." See. Ahmed Hamdi Akseki, Islam is a Natural and Public Religion, DIB Publications, Ankara 2018, p. 222.
(2) Hajj 22:78. Akseki confirms it and says that the basis of the religion conveyed by every prophet is Islam. See. Akseki, Islam is a Natural Religion globally addressing people, p. 337.
(3) See. İbrahim Coşkun, “The Reasons That Generate Deism, Atheism and Nihilism Today”, in Problems of Faith in the Modern Age, p. 51-58, here p. 51.
(4) In this sense, idolatry that disregards human dignity and militant ideological atheism can be shown as examples of movements that Islam does not tolerate. For more information, see Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 225-226.
(5) For more information about the place and importance of Kalam among Islamic sciences, see, Yusuf Şevki Yavuz, the article "Kelam,“ TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, c. 25, p. 196-203; For the different definitions made in terms of the subject and objectives of the science of Kalam, see. Fatih Kurt (Editor), Problems of Faith in the Modern Age, Presidency of Religious Affairs Publications, Istanbul 2019, p. 8-10.
(6) See. Mehmet Ulukütük, Religion and Reason in Islamic Thought, Otto Publications, Ankara 2017, p. 17-41; For an evaluation emphasizing the unity of reason and revelation in Islam, see. Şaban Ali Duzgun, Religions and Religious People in the Contemporary World, Otto Publications, Ankara 2018, p. 27-30.
Religion deals with and addresses the wise people. In this respect, Akseki says, “Although the birthplace of religion is intellect and foresight, its development and progress is through divine revelation. That's why, according to the Islamic belief, religion is both rational and transmitted", saying that the fact that religion is based on revelation does not prevent it from being rational and reasonable(7). For this reason, it is not possible to talk about any unreasonable belief principles in Islam(8). The issue of unbelief, which gained momentum after the Enlightenment, covers a difficult area that both Christian Western theology and Islamic scholars and intellectuals have been struggling with for the last two centuries(9). One of the works that best reflects the scientific accumulation of the Ottoman Empire from a theological point of view in the context of these issues is undoubtedly the book of Mevkifu'l-ʿakl by Mustafa Sabri, one of the last sheikh al-Islams(10). The literature, which is formed within the framework of the views discussed by Mustafa Sabri, is one of the most important sources to be consulted on this subject(11). Mustafa Sabri thinks that the roots of modern atheism should be sought in the understanding of skepticism (hisbâniyye), which started with the ancient Greeks(12). He also follows how the atheist science and philosophy mentality developed in the history of Western thought through its most important representatives(13).
We will try to point out how this issue is approached from the point of view of the Sunnah by referring to the views of Mustafa Sabri from time to time.
We realize that the content and arguments about disbelief have not changed much, despite the centuries-old period that passed over the conditions under which Mustafa Sabri Efendi wrote his work. What has changed is that these claims have become widespread more rapidly than in any period, through technological opportunities and social media.
(7) Akseki, Islam is a Natural Religion addressing all kind of people, p. 20.
(8) See. Selim Özarslan, “The Causes of Today's Belief Problems”, in Faith Problems of the Modern Age, p. 29-37, here p. 33.
(9) See. Coşkun, “The Reasons That Generate Deism, Atheism and Nihilism Today”, p. 53; For a study that evaluates the issue from the perspective of Mustafa Sabri Efendi's criticism of atheism, see. Osman Demir, “Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Criticisms of Modern Science and Atheism”, The Word of Sheikh al-Islam-Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Contribution to Islamic Thought and New Theology Studies, Merdan Güneş, Tuncay Başoğlu (Jun.), Ketebe Publications, Istanbul 2020 , s. 107-146.
(10) Mustafa Sabri Efendi put forward original counter-theses to the theses of the Reformers in Religion in his work named Mevkifu'l-akl, which is one of his last works and published four years before his death. The aforementioned work, in four volumes, is considered among the most important Kalam works of the period. See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl vel-ʿilm velʿâlem min rabbi'l-ʿâlemîn ve ʿibâdihî'l-murselîn, Dâr İhyâʾ at-Turâs alʿArabî, Beirut 1981.
(11) Some of the most important sources that can be consulted about Mustafa Sabri Efendi's views criticizing the modern positivist paradigm, see. İbrahim Bayram, Religious Thought of Şeyhülislam Mustafa Sabri Efendi, Classic Publications, Istanbul 2018; Faruk Terzic, Religion and Modernity in the Thought of Mustafa Sabri: a comparative approach, Phd. thesis, International Islamic University, Islamabad 2008; Merdan Güneş, Dialektisches Ringen zwischen Tradition und Moderne - Mustafa Sabris Positionierung zu den theologischen und intellektuellen Herausforderungen in der Spätphase des Osmanischen Reiches (19th–20th Jh.), Peterlang Verlag, Berlin 2020; For the papers of a symposium dealing with Mustafa Sabri Efendi's views on different subjects, see. Merdan Güneş, Tuncay Başoğlu (Jun.), The Kalam of Şeyhülislâm-Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Contribution to Islamic Thought and New Kalam Studies, Ketebe Publications, Istanbul 2020.
(12) See Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu’l-ʿakl, c. II, s. 235.
(13) For a comprehensive assessment of how Mustafa Sabri Efendi explained this process, see. Demir, "Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Criticism of Modern Science and Atheism", p. 109-115.
For this reason, Baloğlu can talk about the "Mobile Atheists of the Virtual World"(14). The claims of these activist atheists mainly focus on three issues. They can be briefly summarized as follows: that religion is incompatible with reason and science; the second is, based on examples such as the Taliban and DAESH, violence and terrorism stem from religion and the third is as the fact that, since the existence of God cannot be proven by contemporary scientific methods, such a thing does not actually exist (15). The most important point that these claimants overlook is the fact that a physical being/object that can be seen with the naked eye cannot be God. Another mistake is the assumption that the idea of God's existence stems from an irrational thought. The truth, on the other hand, is that in the opposite, the idea of God is a reasonable eloquent situation that is obtained as a result of contemplation and meditation(16). In other words, the necessity of believing in a creator is a requirement of reason(17). It is the result of this understanding that Imam Abu Hanifa and Maturidi hold societies that did not receive any prophethood responsible for finding and believing that there is a creator through reason(18).
(14) See. Bülent Baloğlu, “The Itinerant Atheists of the Virtual World”, Faith Problems of the Modern Age, p. 81-88.
(15) See. Coşkun, “The Reasons That Generate Deism, Atheism and Nihilism Today”, p. 51-58.
(16) Akseki, Islam is a Natural Religion addressing all kind of people, p. 17.
(17) Aydın Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, DIB Publications, Ankara p. 57.
(18) Akseki, Islam, Natural and General Religion, p.20; On this view of Mâturîdî, see. Smooth, Religions & Religious People in the Contemporary World, p. 21.
WHAT DOES UNBELİEF MEAN?
Thinking that something exists in the realm of existence and trying to prove it is done to eliminate the claim that it does not exist. In a situation where the possibility of non-existence is not considered or there is no such claim, it is not necessary to prove the existence of something. The most basic claim of other revelation-based Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, is that there is a creator. The philosophical expression of this is theism in the sense of belief in God(19). How this issue is handled in the Islamic thought system constitutes one of the most important issues in the kalam literature, even the most important one(20). The concept of isbat-i vacib (necessary existence, proof of existence of the one who must exist) is the most important subject of the science of kalam(21). Mustafa Sabri Efendi, by dedicating an important part of his four-volume work called Mevkıf to this subject, evaluated all the claims, including Kant, from the perspective of kalam(22). Kant used his own moral proof, saying that the existence of God cannot be proven with rational proofs. Mustafa Sabri, on the other hand, is of the opinion that moral evidence is not sufficient and it is possible to prove it with rational evidence(23). Because the phenomenon we call religion is first of all about whether or not to accept the existence of a creator. The same issue is observed in the history of philosophy. Philosophers who believe that there is a god have put forward many different rational proofs to prove this(24). If you do not believe in a power/being that brings existence into existence by creating it out of nothing, then there is no need to talk about any religion. The phenomenon of religion is basically the result of believing in such a power.
(19) Aydın Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 7.
(20) Bk. Kurt, Modern Çağın İnanç Sorunları, p. 8
(21) For more inf, see M. Sait Özervarlı, article "Isbat-i vacib", TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 22, p. 495-497
(22) For a comprehensive study on Mustafa Sabri's views on Isbat-ı vâcib, İbrahim Bayram, Religious Thought of Şeyhülislam Mustafa Sabri Efendi, p. 215-286.
(23) See. See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. II, p. 235; Halim Çalış, “Mustafa Sabri Efendi and His Criticisms of Kant's Philosophy”, Yeni Ümit Magazine, İzmir 2001, issue, 54.
(24) On the philosophical proofs of God's existence, see Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 114-146.
Perhaps the first question to be answered here is what the concept of "belief" in our title means. There are also thinkers who argue that the term unbelief is not appropriate. Because, according to them, unbelief is the result of a different belief. In this sense, they may prefer terms such as atheism instead of the concept of unbelief. In our opinion, unbelief is still a correct nomenclature in terms of expressing the claim of those who say "I don't believe". Perhaps the term atheism may be more appropriate for atheism, but this term is not sufficient to express all types of unbelief in general.
There are many concepts that can have this meaning in the Islamic scientific tradition and especially in the kalam literature. Although the concepts of dehriyya, sumeniyye, ilhad, zindiq (zenâdika) and kufr have nuances depending on the context in which they are used, they all have a common meaning in terms of disbelief when the religion of Islam is taken as a basis.(25). In this sense, at the beginning of the most encountered expressions in the kalam literature, the concepts of ilhad(26) and zindiq(27) come along with the term dehriyye, which expresses the "materialist philosophy current that argues that the world is eternal and has no creator(28).
(25) For more information about different religious and philosophical movements, one can refer to the Milel and Nihal literature, which is the common name of works on the history of religions and sects in Islamic literature. Ömer Faruk Harman, “Milel and Nihal” article, TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, c. 30, p. 57-58. On these currents, see Emine Öğük, The Relationship between Sharia and Wisdom in Maturidi's Thought System, TDV Publications, Ankara 2020, p. 35-66.
(26) Mustafa Sinanoğlu says that the word ilhâd, as a term of kalam, means "to deny the existence or unity of Allah, the basic provisions of religion, to raise doubts about them or to arouse them, to underestimate religious rules.”For more information about the meaning of this concept in terms of other religions, see. Mustafa Sinanoğlu, article "Ilhad", TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, c. 22, p. 90-92; For more detailed information about what the concept of ilhad means in the context of Islamic thought, see. İlhan Kutluer, article “İlhâd”, TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, c. 22, p. 93-96.
(27) For the etymological root of the word "Zindik", which is "a term that expresses people who claim that the world is eternal, and who seem to believe in God or the oneness of God and the Hereafter, although they deny it", see. Mustafa Öz, article "heretic" (Zındık), TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, c. 44, p. 390-391.
(28) According to Hayrani Altıntaş, "Dehriyye, which generally represents atheist and materialist currents of thought in the Islamic world, is the common name of the denialist theses in various philosophical currents, as well as expressing a philosophical trend formed by prominent personalities.” For more information on this concept, see Hayrani Altıntaş, article "Dehriye", TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, c. 9, p. 107-109.
The concept of unbelief may also be used in the sense of not having an understanding of religion that is accepted as true and authentic, or in the sense of not believing in anything/religion or the existence of God, that is, atheism. In short, the concept of unbelief can mean both the absence of any real belief and deviant beliefs. Because what is accepted as the basis and creed of religion according to one religion can be accepted as heresy, that is, unbelief, according to another understanding of religion.
If we consider this in the context of the religion of Islam, any belief system that violates the understanding of tawhid in the religion of Islam actually comes to the same level as atheism and unbelief in the final analysis. Of course, it is beyond the explanation that they are different from each other in the philosophical sense. What we mean here is a union in the sense that all of them will be included in the scope of kufr at the point of Islamic belief. In fact, hypocrisy, which we can call shirk (having partner with God) or hypocrisy in belief, is a more dangerous state of disbelief than atheism in this respect. Therefore, when it comes to the Islamic creed, beliefs such as pantheism or deism, which are not true in terms of eternal salvation, are the same as atheism, agnosticism or materialism in the sense of unbelief, and all of them mean Rejection the Truth (Kufr)/unbelief in terms of the absence of the Islamic creed. Regardless of the reason for not believing in Islam, all of them are considered as disbelief in the sense that there is no real belief. Therefore, every situation where there is no true belief in terms of Islamic tawhid can be defined as unbelief and disbelief.
Here, of course, the issue of the people of the book [Ehl-i Kitab] in the Islamic belief system can be put forward as an objection. Judaism and Christianity, which represent the people of the book, are seen as blasphemy, that is, the denial of true belief, tawhid, on the grounds that they have been distorted, as it is fixed in the Qur'an. Just as unbelief has been described according to the Islamic creed and what constitutes unbelief has been discussed, the same is true for other religions, especially Judaism and Christianity(29). However, it is known that there are some privileged different practices for the people of the book in terms of fiqh and social relations, that is, towards this world. At the point of protecting fundamental rights, Islam looks at all humanity as Adam's children. Therefore, it sees the protection of these rights as a necessity of being human, regardless of religion, language or race(30). In the tradition of Islamic thought and science, there are many terms originating from the Qur'an and Sunnah, such as shirk, nifaq, and ilhad, which are used to mean the lack of belief in oneness of God, tawhid. Concepts such as infidel, polytheist, zindiq and mulhid, which we frequently encounter in religious literature, are terms that are generally used in our culture to mean unbeliever and denier, and they actually express different types of denial(31). Among these concepts, the word ‘kufr,’ used in the sense of unbelief, the opposite of faith, is the most comprehensive one. If there is no faith, there is blasphemy. The concept of blasphemy includes all the views and understandings that reject the truth of tawhid, especially atheism(32). Here, when it comes to unbelief, we consider it useful to briefly clarify the issue of atheism, which comes to mind in the sense of atheism.
(29) For information on what unbelief means in Judaism, Christianity and other religions, see. Mustafa Sinanoğlu, article "Ilhad", TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, c. 22, p. 90-92.
(30) See. Smooth, Religions and Religious People in the Contemporary World, p. 31. For an example of studies that consider that fundamental rights in Islam are dependent on the condition of being human (âdemiyye), see. Merdan Gunes “Ādamiyya-Prinzip - Die Begründung der Unantastbarkeit der menschlichen Würde und des Gleichheitsprinzips aus islamischer Perspective”, Religiöse Differenzen gestalten – Hermeneutische Grundlagen des christlich-louchlich- muslim in Eth. , Herder Verlag, 2020, p. 157-183; Recep Şentürk, “Ādamiyya (humanity) and 'ismah (inviolability): The Contested Relationship between Humanity and Human Rights in Classical Islamic law”, Journal of Islamic Studies, 8 (2002), p. 39-69.
(31) See. Mehmet Aydın, Philosophy of Religion, Izmir 1987, p. 162.
(32) On the western-sourced intellectual and philosophical movements that feed disbelief, see. Selim Özarslan, “The Causes of Today's Belief Problems”, in Faith Problems of the Modern Age, p. 29-37.
ATHEISM VERSION OF UNBELİEF
As stated by philosophy and other dictionaries, not believing that a creator exists or claiming that he does not exist can be summarized with the concept of atheism. In the dictionary, it means denying the existence of Allah, not recognizing, atheism, ilhâdiyye, dehriyya(33). According to A. Topaloğlu, atheism, which is a philosophical term: "It is the name of a worldview that expresses a reactionary thought against belief in God"(34). Although J. Gray adopts the idea that a complete definition of atheism, like the concept of religion, cannot be made, he says that if a definition is to be made, it may be "it consists of the absence of the idea of a creator-god"(35). The owner of this claim is also called an atheist. This person believes that existence consists only of this visible world. The world he lives in is everything to him, the areas of existence that are claimed to exist outside of him have no value beyond crude imagination and illusion(36). The roots of the word atheism go back to Ancient Greek. Theos means "God" in Greek, and the prefix "a" in the word atheos indicates negativity(37). The word atheism has been taken as "atheism" in Turkish by adding the negative prefix "a" to the beginning of the word "theism" in English(38).
As can be understood from the Greek origin of the word, the concept of atheism means negating the existence of God. In this respect, it can be said that atheism is not a belief, as some perceive it. Because this philosophical doctrine rejects the idea of God as the basis of belief, an atheist cannot be a representative of a belief. According to some, an atheist is not a person who denies God; because “to deny” means to reject something that exists. However, according to the representatives of the idea of atheism, there is no such thing as God. In this case, since there is no God, it will not be possible to deny him(39).
(33) Mehmet Dogan, Great Turkish Dictionary, "atheism" Iz Publishing, Istanbul 1996, p. 80.
(34) See. Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 11.
(35) John Gray, Seven Types of Atheism, Tran. by Nurettin Elhuseyni, Yapı Kredi Publications, Istanbul 2020, p. 8.
(36) John Gray, Seven Types of Atheism, Tran. by Nurettin Elhuseyni, YK Publications, Istanbul 2020, p. 20.
(37) See, Gray, Seven Types of Atheism, p. 8.
(38) See. Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 11
(39) See, Gray, Seven Types of Atheism, p. 7-10
Although unbelief has a more comprehensive meaning framework than atheism, the concept of atheism is one of the most important concepts that we should consider in terms of unbelief. The origin of atheism goes back to the emergence of the first religions and the idea of god, as stated by the historians of religions. Anaximander (610 -546 BC), Anaxogoras (499-428 BC), Democritus (460-370 BC), Epicurus (341-270 BC), who were the representatives of Greek materialism in Antiquity) and Lucretios (94-55 BC) are also the earliest known representatives of atheism(40). In the modern period, the most prominent representatives of atheism were Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Comte (1798-1857), Feuerbach (1804-1872), Marx (1818-1883), Nietzsche (1844-1900), Freud (1856-1939) and Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Ayer (1910-1989) and Albert Camus (1913-1960)(41). They deny God in the name of glorifying man and his right to freely determine his own values. Based on the idea that the idea of the existence of God restricts human freedom, they reject the idea of God as the price of this freedom. Sartre clearly states that God should not exist in terms of human freedom(42). This approach also shapes the basis of humanist thought after the Enlightenment. The philosophical equivalent of accepting man as the sole measure of everything can be summarized in the concept of humanism(43). Protagoras' statement that “man is the measure of all things” is the most basic post-Enlightenment worldview (Weltanschauung) as an epistemological thesis(44). The idea of God is sacrificed in this thought, with the intention of glorifying and liberating man. In this sense, the question of whether humanism exalted man or did it go beyond the limits of being the first to rebel against God and join the cursed Iblis remains one of the most fundamental issues discussed among contemporary thinkers. Is the servant a human being, or the person who declares himself to be the measure of everything in his claim to deity, most deserving of the quality of humanity?(45) The anti-religious secular approaches that became stronger in the West after the Enlightenment are mostly the result of the inhuman practices of the Church, which dominated medieval Europe, in the name of God and religion(46). It is not correct to question/judge the religion of Islam with the discourses of anti-religious movements after the Enlightenment, which were shaped as a result of the struggle against the church. Because, Islam is based on a very different basis from the religion of Christianity, with its structure that gives importance to rational and experiential knowledge(47). Evaluations made by ignoring the differences between these two religions are doomed to give wrong results(48).
The concept of atheism in the sense of unbelief has also been divided into varieties such as positive and negative atheism due to the different approaches/tendencies it contains over time. The main difference between the two is that while arguments about the absence of God are put forward in positive atheism, such an effort is not encountered in negative atheism. So in negative atheism there is no claim, only a rejection. In positive atheism, there is both a rejection and a counterclaim. What they all have in common is that, ultimately, one does not believe in a God(49). What is rejected from the atheist point of view is not only the existence of God, but also all metaphysical beliefs and spiritual beings.
(40) For more comprehensive information about the history of atheism, see. Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 39-51, here p. 39.
(41) See Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 43-49.
(42) See Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 169.
(43) See Metin Özdemir, “Social Reflections of Belief Problems”, in Belief Problems of the Modern Age, s. 23-27
(44) See Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu’l-ʿakl, c. II, s. 237.
(45) See Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu’l-ʿakl, c. II, s. 237.
(46) See Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 41; Smooth, Religions and Religious People in the Contemporary World, p. 27.
(47) See Ulukütük, Religion and Reason in Islamic Thought, p. 20-22.
(48) Smooth, Religions and Religious People in the Contemporary World, p. 27
(49) Among the types of atheism, Topaloğlu mentions five categories as Absolute, Theoretical, Practical, Ideological (Materialistic) and Atheism of the Irrelevant. For more detailed information about these, See Topaloğlu, Atheism Ditch, p. 25-30.
Two other varieties of atheism are practical and theoretical atheism. Atheism, which means that the existence of God is not attributed to a value even if his existence is not rejected, is called practical atheism, while atheism that produces theses against theism is called theoretical atheism(50). According to Gray, just as there are many different understandings of religion, there are also many different types of atheism. 21st century atheism is a type of disbelief based on materialism in any case(51).
Topaloğlu says that the claims of atheists can be grouped under three main headings. These are the three basic principles on which Islamic belief is based, namely the existence of God, Prophethood and belief in the hereafter. Therefore, atheists may target one or all of these three principles in their claims(52).
Atheism is a concept in the sense of atheism. The problem with atheism is not primarily religions, but God. Therefore, atheism is a philosophical movement based on denying the existence of God. Belief in God is essential in Christianity and Judaism, just like in Islam. It is not possible to talk about these religions where there is no God. Therefore, although atheism does not always position itself against religions, by rejecting God, it ultimately rejects religions, albeit indirectly(53).
Another issue that should be pointed out in this context is the Neo-Atheism movement, which is leading all currents in anti-religion. In fact, they do not have any other claim or capital other than the claim that the only criterion that the materialist positivist paradigm stigmatizes is being scientific(54). Despite this, this outdated approach continues to be treated as a shining star by some mahfils. It can be argued that the only measure of truth is scientific and there is no epistemic source other than this(55).
The weakest point of this approach can be summarized as the fact that all of its claims consist of unproven ideological prejudices. Neither their arguments about religion nor what they say in the name of science have a proven scientific basis. In summary, although all the claims made in the name of atheism seem to be made in the name of being scientific, they are actually based on an ideological framework/prejudice rather than being scientific(56). They see contemporary science as a criterion that covers not only the physical and phenomenal field, but also the metaphysical field, as Sheikh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri Efendi determined a century ago(57). There is no scientific or reasonable basis for this. To put it briefly, the claims of the Neo-Atheists about the relationship between science, religion and religion-science are beyond being superficial, they are very wrong and ideological(58).
(50) See Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 25-28
(51) See Gray, The Seven Types of Atheism, p. 10.
(52) See Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 81
(53) See Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 14-15
(54) See Topaloğlu, Dead End of Atheism, p. 80; John Gray talks about seven different types of atheism in his work, which he started by specifically addressing Neo-Atheism. See Gray, The Seven Types of Atheism, p. 15-29.
(55) See Topaloğlu, Dead End of Atheism, p. 53, 54
(56) Topaloğlu categorizes the theses/prejudices on which scientific claims are tried to be based on as Comte's positivism, Feuerbach's anthropology, Karl Marx's sociology, Freud's psychoanalysis, Nietzsche and Sartre's existentialism. For more information, see Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 147-172.
(57) See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. II, p. 278.
(58) For a more detailed study on Neo-Atheism and its critique, see. Alper Bilgili, “Neo-Atheism and Its Criticism”, in Faith Problems of the Modern Age, p. 91-101; Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. II, p. 278.
OTHER PHILOSOPHİCAL MOVEMENTS REPRESENTİNG ATHEİSM /UNBELİEF
We can list the important currents of thought on which atheism and unbelief are based or intertwined as materialism, positivism, skepticism, Darwinism and naturalism(59). The philosophical foundations of atheism are basically based on materialism and to some extent skepticism(60). Mustafa Sabri Efendi, like his contemporaries, tried to answer all these claims, especially within the framework of naturalism/naturalism and materialism(61). Because, according to Şeyhülislam, the foundations of today's modern Western philosophy and atheism have been developed by building on this materialist and skeptical philosophy since ancient Greece(62).
Although Darwinism is generally mentioned in the same category, the theory of evolution does not necessarily require rejecting a creator. Although the Darwinist claim constitutes an important argument/creed for atheism, it is known that Darwin himself did not reject God unequivocally(63). Mustafa Sabri, like other movements representing the modern positivist paradigm, has subjected the claims about Darwinism to a comprehensive criticism. He criticized both Darwin's and his followers' arguments on this issue in a scientific way. He tried to show that these claims, which base the creation on the theory of the coincidental evolution of matter, lack a solid scientific basis(64).
(59) Mustafa Sabri Efendi tries to show that they are inconsistent and invalid in the plan of reason and logic, by considering modern movements based on the principle of rejecting religion and God, by applying to alternative views developed in the West. For a study on this subject, see Merdan Güneş, Dialektisches Ringen, p. 249-299.
(60) Those who elaborate more on the movements related to unbelief can mention categories such as Materialism, Positivism, Evolutionism, Pantheism, Freudism, Atheism, Deism, Secularism, Nihilism, Satanism and Existentialism. See. Özarslan, “The Reasons of Today's Belief Problems”, p. 29-37.
(61) For Mustafa Sabri's criticisms about materialism, see. M. Güneş, Dialektisches Ringen, p. 252-267.
(62) See. Demir, "Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Criticism of Modern Science and Atheism", p. 109; Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. II, p. 235.
(63) For an evaluation in the context of the relationship between Darwinism and being scientific, see. Ali Köse, "Darwinism: The Creed of Science", in Problems of Faith in the Modern Age, p. 127-130.
(64) See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. II, p. 279-285; Merdan Güneş, Dialektisches Ringen, p. 275-285; Terzic, Religion und Modernity, p. 116-134.
All of these currents are basically atheist, or agree on the point of refusing to believe in a religion because they essentially reject the idea that the world has a creator. The positivist materialist worldview does not accept that the world came into existence out of nothing, that is, that it has a creator. Therefore, they completely deny metaphysical and spiritual beings. For them, there is only the realm of physics and matter, which can be seen and experienced. Apart from that, all claims, the imagination of a realm of existence beyond matter, are nothing but crude imagination(65). They prefer to explain the existence of religions by reducing them to different sociological, psychological and some historical reasons(66). Therefore, these currents, which are built on the idea of denying a transcendent concrete creator, not only reject religions, but also reject all metaphysical notions of existence altogether(67).
Many claims and theses are mentioned about the basic arguments on which atheism is based. Many of these are actually nothing more than different approaches of the positivist materialist vision of the world(68). They reject a transcendent God, who is conceived as a metaphysical entity. For them, there is no realm of existence other than matter and what is seen. Since the metaphysical field cannot be observed, the claim of such a field of existence is only an imaginary claim(69). They do not accept any evidence or argument that the theologians put forward to prove the existence of God as real data to be taken seriously(70). Because these arguments are diametrically opposed to the positivist paradigm of knowledge they call scientific. According to this positivist point of view, the claim that there are things that cannot be observed with experience and five senses is just an illusion(71).
As a result of this understanding, Kasım Küçükalp draws attention to the distortion on this issue, with the determination that "value has started to replace value in knowledge in the axis of a mechanistic world vision". He summarizes that Descartes' 'I think therefore I am' motto has been replaced by the motto 'I see, therefore I am'. According to him, while he thinks that he dominates nature thanks to the new technology he has established and developed with his hands, he is condemned to be the object of this system, not the subject(72). This appears to be a modern version of the idolatrous idolatry they made with their hands.
(65) See. Merdan Güneş, Dialektisches Ringen, p. 253-255; For comprehensive information on materialism, see Aydın Topaloğlu, "materialism" article, TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, c. 28, p. 137-140.
(66) See. Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 79.
(67) See. Topaloğlu, "materialism" article, c. 28, p. 137-140.
(68) For detailed info about the theses/prejudices on which scientific claims are tried to be based, see. Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 147-172.
(69) See. Topaloğlu, "materialism" article, c. 28, p. 137-140.
(70) See. Temel Yesilyurt, Possibility of Religious Knowledge, Human Publications, Istanbul 2003, p. 8.
(71) For a study dealing with the mind-sense relationship in Mustafa Sabri Efendi's theory of knowledge, see. İbrahim Bayram, “Mind-Sense Comparison in Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Theory of Knowledge”, The Kalam of Şeyhülislâm - Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Contribution to Islamic Thought and New Kalam Studies, M. Güneş, Tuncay Başoğlu (Jun.), Ketebe Publications, Istanbul 2020, p. 17-47.
(72) See. Kasım Küçükalp, “Devaluation of Values and Nihilism”, in Faith Problems of the Modern Age, p. 103-107.
At this point, the objection of Şeyhülislam Mustafa Sabri Efendi, one of the important representatives of the Islamic scientific tradition, is a criticism against the modern positivist science paradigm(73). The fact that the ontological and epistemological foundations on which the Islamic understanding of existence and science is based are different from those predicted by the materialist science paradigm forms the basis of the critique of Sheikh al-Islam(74). In this context, the value and meaning attributed to the mind are the main determinants of two different perspectives. Both paradigms claim that their approaches are based on reason. Sabri Efendi tries to cancel these currents and modern claims that legitimize disbelief within the framework of a harmonious understanding of knowledge that takes the Islamic scientific tradition as a reference, within the framework of his own dialectics(75). It would not be an exaggeration to call Mustafa Sabri's criticism the most sophisticated and serious criticism developed against the Western positivist knowledge paradigm in the modern era.
After such a general evaluation, we can move on to the epistemological, ontological and psychological justifications, which are the three basic dimensions of disbelief mentioned at the beginning. We have mentioned at the beginning of the impossibility of pointing out all the philosophical grounds on which unbelief originates or is based. Despite this, we can say that these three philosophical dimensions that we will consider include many reasons that we have not discussed in detail here. For example, we can consider the sociological dimension of psychology and the problem of evil (theodicy) within ontological grounds.
(73) For a study dealing with Mustafa Sabri's critique of the positivist paradigm, see. İbrahim Bayram, “Mind-Sense Comparison of Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Theory of Knowledge”, Merdan Güneş, Tuncay Başoğlu (June), The Word of Şeyhülislâm - Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Contribution to Islamic Thought and New Kalam Studies, Ketebe Publications, Istanbul 2020 , s. 17-48.
(74) For a comprehensive study on Mustafa Sabri Efendi's criticisms of modern science, see. Demir, "Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Criticism of Modern Science and Atheism", p. 107-146.
(75) See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. II, p. 107-348.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS/REASONS
The issue of disbelief, which falls under the field of epistemology, which we call the philosophy of knowledge in our language, is related to the source of knowledge and its nature. This approach, which is based on the positivist knowledge paradigm of materialist philosophy, does not accept any other source of information, since it reduces the sources of information to only the visible. From this point of view, the institution of revelation and prophecy on which religions, and especially Islam, is based, does not have the feature of being a source of information. They attribute a value as a source of information only to what they can detect through experimentation and experience. In fact, as it was pointed out earlier, they do not accept the a priori information that abstract mind deduces as necessary/deliberate, as it was in the ancient Islamic tradition, by condemning the mental only to the physical domain. However, the reduction of pure reason and logic, developed by the tradition of Islamic thought by benefiting from the ancient Greek understanding, to practical reason and experimentation, is criticized not only by Muslim thinkers such as Mustafa Sabri, but also by many well-known Western Philosophers(77).
As a result of the fact that the realm of existence is limited to the visible only, why should the a priori properties of the pure mind be invalid? This is the most important question that those who think like Mustafa Sabri rightly ask. Where do they get the right to define and set limits on what knowledge is and its sources? This issue is closely related to the philosophy of being, which we will discuss later. To put it more clearly, this issue is about what the mind means and its limits on the one hand, and on the other hand, basing the information sources only on the physical field. For those who object to the positivist knowledge paradigm, experiment and observation can only provide us with some data with the limited possibilities of the five senses. Therefore, according to them, the main source of the problem is that the information sources are confined to the field where experiments can only be done by experience(78).
Skepticism is based on the assumption that it is impossible to obtain certain information about a subject. Representatives of this current say that there is no definitive information. This is not only about metaphysics, but also in physics. As a result, the issue that both skeptics and those who flag the positivist paradigm of knowledge agree on is that it is impossible to talk about any realm of existence that is transcendent, that is, beyond nature. The rationale for the positivist and materialist paradigm of knowledge is that these issues are out of observation and experimentation. There is no existence other than what can be seen and felt, and there is no information or source of information based on them. As the skeptics doubt the accuracy of the information, it is not possible for them to reach accurate information, whether it is related to the one who can be experienced with nature or the supernatural unseen realm.
Mustafa Sabri Efendi objected to these claims in the middle of the 20th century, especially in the context of method and scientific understanding(79). While doing this, he makes his objections and criticisms by focusing on two issues. The first of these is the question of whether it is a reliable and precise source of information, as the positivist paradigm claims. The other is related to the jurisdiction of this information source. In other words, does the positivist knowledge paradigm have the competence/authority to speak in every field?
(76) See. Yesilyurt, The Opportunity of Religious Knowledge, p. 8.
(77) See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. II, p. 106-110.
(78) See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. II, p. 108; Yesilyurt, The Opportunity of Religious Knowledge, p. 7-11.
(79) On Mustafa Sabri's criticism of skepticism, see. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. 2 H. 233-274.
Mustafa Sabri emphasizes that the science, method and paradigm that the West has newly developed is far from being an absolute criterion of accuracy, as is supposed. Because, according to Mustafa Sabri, knowledge is “an adjective that provides an appeal (separation) in a way that eliminates the possibility to the contrary”(80). This can only be achieved with the mind that does not have the weakness of sense and experience because, although empirical and empirical knowledge is correct, it is not exact knowledge. The difference between the right knowledge obtained by reason and experience, while the knowledge obtained with the mind expresses necessary knowledge but the one obtained through experience is not the knowledge necessary(81). According to him, it is the biggest mistake to make science exclusive to the field based on sense and experiment only within the framework of physics/matter, and to exclude the metaphysical field from being scientific. Therefore, the new understanding of science does not include religion/theology among the reasonable sciences, which it defines as positive sciences, and condemns religions to a field other than science(82). According to Mustafa Sabri, seeing the metaphysical field, which he could not experiment and observe, apart from the scientific one, is an unacceptable indiscretion of the positivist paradigm(83). The most important indicator of this is that the title of "positive science" is ascribed to the information obtained through experience, and the sciences that do not fall into this category are tried to be marginalized in the sense of "non-positive science"(84).
The second criticism of Sabri Efendi is about the jurisdiction of the positivist paradigm. It is not a simple mistake to accept methods belonging to the field of physics as a measure for the field of metaphysics. This is clearly the transfer of a method of which validity is controversial even in the field of physics to another area where its data and results are not authorized. According to him, the science of logic developed by Muslim scholars by gathering from Ancient Greece still maintains its validity today. In short, the scientific criteria imposed by the positivist paradigm are not only problematic in themselves, but also lack the power to cover the metaphysical field(85). Sabri Efendi clearly states that he wrote his book Mevkifu'l-ʿakl to reveal the role that reason, science and experience play in reaching the truth, and that there is no other book that approaches the subject of the issue with a concise point of view in this way(86).
According to Mustafa Sabri Efendi, the understanding of science belonging to the positivist paradigm lies on the basis of those who think like Muhammed Abduh (died on 1905)(87). Since the modern paradigm reduces scientific and therefore rationality to what can only be observed by sense and experience, it considers the subject of miracles to be non-rational and unscientific. Mustafa Sabri, on the other hand, argues that it is not correct to understand rationality only as the modern paradigm perceives it, and argues that events such as miracles are actually reasonable, according to the ancient paradigm of reason and knowledge(88). Condemning the mind to the narrow materialistic understanding of the modern paradigm actually means rejecting the plausibility claim on which religion is based.
(80) Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. 2 H. 107; On this subject, see Mehmet Emin Şen, “Religion and Dialectics in the Thought System of Mustafa Sabri Efendi”, Necmettin Erbakan University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Philosophy and Religious Sciences, (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Konya 2019), p. 22; Bayram, “Mind-Sense Comparison in Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Theory of Knowledge”, p. 17-48, here p. 18.
(81) Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. 2 H. 230.
(82) Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. 2 H. 92; İbrahim Bayram, “Mind-Sense Comparison in Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Theory of Knowledge”, p. 17-48, here p. 19.
(83) Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu’l-ʿakl, c. 2, s. 106-107.
(84) Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu’l-ʿakl, c. 2, s. 304-305.
(85) Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu’l-ʿakl, c. 2, s. 107.
(86) Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu’l-ʿakl, c. 2, s. 234.
(87) See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-akl, c. 4, p. 354.
(88) For a comprehensive study on Mustafa Sabri Efendi's criticisms of modern science, see. Demir, "Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Criticism of Modern Science and Atheism", p. 107-146.
Another point that Mustafa Sabri draws attention to in the context of the miracle is that the rejection of the miracle is not a subject that can be dealt with independently of the principles of belief that are directly related to believing in Allah, the Prophet and the Qur'an(89). Therefore, according to him, the denial of the miracle, which is fixed in many verses of the Qur'an, is an issue that will bring about serious problems both in terms of mind and faith(90).
According to Mustafa Sabri's understanding, if someone rejects the miracle on the grounds that it does not comply with the modern scientific paradigm, shouldn't he reject the existence of revelation with the same reason? To put it in a nutshell, the rejection of a miracle can lead to a result such as the denial of the miracle-based revelation, the Qur'an, which is the product of revelation, and ultimately the institution of prophecy, which is responsible for informing humanity(91). Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to question the positivist paradigm itself. It is not possible to talk about correct information where the philosophy of knowledge is wrong. Therefore, the correct result cannot be obtained with the wrong method
In the context of this issue, we can find out what the solution is according to Mustafa Sabri in Osman Demir's statements:
Expressing at every opportunity that the reality of the external world, the mental comprehension of the truth of things and that religious principles do not conflict with reason, Mustafa Sabri insists that all issues that are seen as conflicting between the creator and the realm will be resolved when experiment and experience are accepted in his own medium and the mind, which is the biggest supporter of religion, is placed at the center of understanding, (92).”
According to Shaykh al-Islam, this should be the right understanding and method. Otherwise, the positivist knowledge paradigm imposed by the West is the biggest obstacle to our understanding not only of religious truths but also of the world we live in(93). Mustafa Sabri finds positivist science inconsistent in two respects: First; the subject of the research is the transience of the substance, and the second is the distrust of the sense organs. Mustafa Sabri is of the opinion that since the existence of God cannot be proven with a positivist understanding of science; it is simply an injustice to rule that God does not exist.(94).
(89) For an evaluation of Mustafa Sabri's views on the relationship between miracles and basic beliefs, see. Merdan Güneş, “Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Criticisms of Modern Interpretations on Miracle”, p. 49-106, here p. 84-89.
(90) See. Bayram, Religious Thought of Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri Efendi, p. 476-477.
(91) See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-akl, c. 4, p. 39-40. For an evaluation of Mustafa Sabri that deals with the relationship of the miracle with the basic principles of belief, see. Merdan Güneş, “Mustafa Sabri Efendi's Criticisms of Modern Interpretations on Miracle”, p. 49-106, here p. 84-89.
(92) Demir, "M. Sabri Efendi's Criticism of Modern Science and Atheism", p. 107-146, here 143.
(93) See. Yesilyurt, The Opportunity of Religious Knowledge, p. 7-11.
(94) See. Mustafa Sabri, Mevkifu'l-ʿakl, c. II, p. 307.
ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS/REASONS
One of the main arguments on which disbelief is based is the materialistic worldview. Materialism, which literally means giving importance to only material, is a philosophical view that claims that there is no reality other than matter. In this respect, materialism constitutes the most basic philosophical basis of atheism. Materialism, which does not accept any existence other than matter, therefore rejects all supernatural beings such as spirit, jinn, god and devil because they are not based on matter.
The Marxist philosopher Georges Politzer, who is one of the important representatives of the materialist doctrine, defines materialism as "the way of understanding and interpreting the natural events and the events of social life as a natural result, starting from certain principles"(95). Materialism reduces all existence to matter. Therefore, there is no existence other than the phenomenal world seen according to this current.(96).
The claim that there are beings belonging to the metaphysical field is nothing more than a crude illusion. Therefore, a transcendent creator and spirit world, which is the basic claim of religions, is null and void in the eyes of these materialists.
As it is known, the existence of religions cannot be condemned only to matter. There is a realm with another dimension that exists beyond matter and even beyond the mind. In the Islamic scientific tradition, these different dimensions of existence are separated from each other as the realm of property (mulk) and the kingdom. Another distinction is called the material and spiritual realm by approaching matter and spirit. The realm of martyrdom and the realm of the unseen is another expression used to express this distinction. As a result, a realm of existence that exists outside of the visible and the material is the common denominator of all religions based on revelation, especially the religion of Islam.
As in other revelation-centered religions, the indispensable condition of belief in Islam is to believe in the unseen. The Unseen, on the other hand, is an invisible area of existence that cannot be perceived emotionally through the five senses. However, they are revealed through revelation, and believers believe this information because they believe that a reporter is faithful. Since the positivist understanding of knowledge and conception of existence do not recognize such a field of existence and source of knowledge, those who fall into the trap of this paradigm are also deprived of believing in a religion and God because they do not believe in the ghayb (the unknown).
As it can be understood from the information given so far, the conception of existence and the philosophy of knowledge are two fields that are intertwined, support each other, and the existence of one makes the other one. Therefore, one's conception of existence also shapes his philosophy of knowledge. Philosophy of knowledge also creates a person's conception of existence(97). In summary, the positivist science paradigm is a result of the materialist understanding of being. When no realm of existence beyond matter is recognized, the sources of information must be shaped only within the possibilities of this conception of existence(98). Since the metaphysical field does not exist as a field of existence, it cannot be accepted as a source of information. For this reason, the positivist philosophy of knowledge and the materialist philosophy of being must support each other. If the concept of existence is not corrected, the metaphysical field as a source of information does not have the opportunity to be a data. A person can reach information as much as the imagination of existence. Other possibilities that the mind and spirit can offer are out of question for these people. The imagination of the person whose knowledge is limited has to be limited accordingly(99).
Religions, on the other hand, act from the truth that there is a field of existence and knowledge beyond the visible(100).
Accordingly, they offer their believers a much larger space than a materialist can envision and encompass. This is a great richness that includes the entire realm of existence, starting with belief in Allah and belonging to the unseen. Isn't the vision of the hereafter one of the most important principles of belief that gives hope to eternal life? A person who believes that he will definitely give an account for his actions one day and a person who does not believe in such a truth will of course not look at the life they live with the same eye. The principles they follow and the worldly and otherworldly goals they prioritize in their lives will of course not be the same. While there is a source of power that one can rely on and be hopeful in the troubles that befall him, the other will only be in expectation in proportion to his own financial means.
The philosophy of existence and the philosophy of knowledge are the two most important fields that ground people's belief or disbelief. It was pointed out that these two fields constitute an inseparable whole while presenting the findings and criticisms regarding these fields. So much so that those who have one of these two philosophies naturally have an understanding connected to this philosophy in the other field. The epistemology of those who reduce the field of existence to matter remains exclusive to the visible, that is, to the phenomenal field(101). Religion, on the other hand, represents a different conception of the world, based on the postulate that there is a metaphysical field apart from the material one in both the philosophy of existence and the philosophy of knowledge.
(95) Georges Politzer, Basic Principles of Philosophy, Translated by Muzaffer Erdost, Sol Publications 1960, p. 103.
(96) See. Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 89.
(97) See. Yesilyurt, The Opportunity of Religious Knowledge, p. 9.
(98) See. Ulukütük, Religion and Reason in Islamic Thought, p. 35.
(99) See. Yesilyurt, The Opportunity of Religious Knowledge, p. 7-11.
(100) For a compilation study on the possibility of Religious Knowledge, see. Compiled by: Temel Yesilyurt, The Possibility of Religious Knowledge, Human Publications, Istanbul 2003.
(101) See. Ulukütük, Religion and Reason in Islamic Thought, p. 35.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (THEODICY)
In this context, one of the psycho-ontological reasons people put forward for their unbelief is the evils and human dramas that take place on earth. Acting on the assumption that an omnipotent, merciful God cannot stand by as a bystander to such evil or human suffering, they say that since there is evil, then there is no such God. Although the history of the theodicy problem is very old, it is still one of the strongest arguments in supporting atheist views in the West(102). In fact, it is determined that this problem plays a dominant role in the increase of deist and atheist thoughts in Islamic geographies, especially in the West(103). This issue is one of the most important pitfalls of the active advocates of the new atheism(104).
The issue of evil has preoccupied philosophers and religious scholars since Epicurus (died on 270 BC), one of the ancient Greek philosophers. Experts dealing with this subject generally talk about three kinds of evil: metaphysical, physical and moral(105). Some of these are calamities experienced as natural events and without human involvement, while the other is oppression and rape by human hands(106). Muslims who believe that good and evil do not happen outside of Allah's will, in any case, generally agree that there is no absurdity in what Mevla (Guardian God) creates and that it (evil) is bound by some wisdom (entails goodness)(107).
Despite this, both Muslim philosophers and kalam scholars have developed different approaches to the definition of evil. Although the approach to the issue is different among Islamic sects, the issue of evil is handled in a different framework in the Muslim scientific community than it is in the West and Christian theology. With the exception of some thinkers who imitate the West in modern times, Islamic theology focuses on understanding the wisdom of Allah and how to act and how to prevent this evil, rather than taking Allah to account and holding him accountable. The West, on the other hand, can approach the issue in the form of asking God to account because of the paradigm on which it bases its theology. Of course, there are exceptions to what we have said in the details of the subject.
The Qur'an underlines two issues in addition to different solutions on this issue. The first informs us that the truth may not always be as we perceive it. He determines that what people think good can be evil, and what people think is evil can be good(108). The second is that the evil and disasters that have happened to us are actually related to what we have done.
The question of why there is evil has occupied Ghazali like many scholars. He tries to answer this question from several different perspectives. An example he gives in this context is the necessity of cutting the gangrenous hand for the sake of the body. If the hand is not sacrificed, the whole body will perish. Cutting the hand is not necessary for its own sake, but for the well-being of the body. Therefore, shar (evil) is not what is intended, but rather what is intended. One of his findings is that in everything that is seen as evil, whether we understand it or not, some good is always hidden(109). Sometimes the servant realizes this and sometimes he does not. The ultimate wisdom in Allah's creation of evil, declaring "My mercy encompasses all things",(110) is definitely for the servant's benefit in this world or in the hereafter (111). It is to choose the good with his free will and strive to reduce the evils in the world as much as he can.
It was pointed out that another of the philosophical foundations of disbelief is psychological. We would like to wrap up our subject by mentioning some information about this field, which is also fed by ontological and epistemological philosophy.
(102) For a joint research that deals with this issue from the perspectives of both Islamic and Christian theology, see. Merdan Güneş and Margit Eckholt “Leiden/schaft - eine Annäherung an die Theodizee-Frage in islamischer und christlischer Sicht”, in: Hikma, Nr. 11 (1), Osnabrück 2020, p. 5-39.
(103) Metin Özdemir "Divine Justice and Evil", in Faith Problems of the Modern Age, p. 69-79, here p. 69.
(104) See. Bülent Baloğlu “The Itinerant Atheists of the Virtual World”, in Faith Problems of the Modern Age, p. 81-88, here p. 87.
(105) To give a few examples from many academic studies on this subject, see. Cafer Sadık Yaran, Evil and Theodicy – The Problem of Evil and Theistic Solutions in Western and Islamic Philosophy of Religion, Vocational Publications, Istanbul 2021, p. 27-34; Metin Özdemir, The Problem of Evil in Islamic Thought, Kaknüs Publications, Istanbul 2014, p. 12-33; Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 185-204.
(106) See. Topaloğlu, The Dead End of Atheism, p. 190.
(107) According to Maturidi, for a study that deals with the relationship between sharia and wisdom, see. Advice, The Relationship between Sharia and Wisdom in Maturidi's Thought System.
(108) Sura Bakara 2:216.
(109) Muhammed el-Gazâlî, el-Maksadu'l-esnâ fî commentary esmâi'llâhi'l-hüsnâ, Dârü'l-minhâc, Beirut 2018, p. 125.
(110) A'raf 7:156.
(111) See. Özdemir “Divine Justice and Evil”, p. 72.
PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS/RATIONALES
The positivist science paradigm and materialist philosophy have placed not knowing an area of existence and a source of knowledge other than matter at the base of their own philosophical understanding. The confinement of existence and knowledge to such a narrow perspective makes it difficult to explain many events -experienced as human beings-, making mistakes impossible. At the beginning of these are the possibilities such as reason, imagination and dreams. Can each one of them be wonderful in the world we live in, the order and harmony that works flawlessly in its mathematical and aesthetic plan, and the relationship of man with the universe and the world with other planets, only by coincidence? Let's say that materialist philosophy can make some explanations about this visible world, even if it is impossible, and these can be crowned with the seal of scientificity by the positivist knowledge paradigm. Even if all these can be accepted to some extent and somehow, materialist philosophy and modern positivist epistemology are incapable of making an explanation within the framework of their own philosophical assumptions/principles when it comes to the being we call human. Be it Darwin's theory of evolution or other materialist theories, they are inadequate and helpless in explaining the existence we call human.
When we look at the issue from this point of view, it is obvious that everything in the name of existence points to a creator. Man, in particular, is the most perfect of these signs. The verse "We will show them our signs in the mind and in the infus (in their own selves)...”(112) indicates that the afak and the infus are two different possibilities that Allah offers to man for contemplation. Both give the message that there is a being beyond what he sees to those who can understand. Akseki is of the opinion that every spiritual event, be it afak and infus, develops the innate sense of religion in man, namely the idea that there is a creator. (113). In the words of the Qur'an, man is the one who has ahsen-i-taqvîm (best qualities) /ashref-i mahlukat (the best of creation)(114). Its capabilities and abilities cannot be compared to those of any other creature. Isn't man's indifference and dilemma also due to the fact that he is so perfect and equipped in a way? When he looks at himself, he sees himself equipped with different and superior virtues from all the beings he sees around him, within the framework of the mentality and logic that the same Satan considers himself superior to Adam. This realization can turn into the virtue of knowing a creator and faith, and on the contrary, it can open the door to the claim of divinity, revolt and rebellion.
(112) Fussilet 41:53.
(113) Qur’an 95:4
(114) Tin 95:4.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF UNBELIEF ACCORDING TO THE QUR'AN
If we continue with the Qur'an's view of the issue, human indifference on this issue is based on two basic reasons. The first one is the state of tuğyan (rudeness, ingratitude), which is caused by the feeling of istigna (gratitude) in the human being, which is informed by the verse that comes after the first five verses revealed to our Prophet in Alak Surah(115).
These verses inform us how a person who forgets the truth of creation, mistaking himself for something, can rebel in a state of mind that does not appreciate anything and does not need anyone's help. One of the most important examples in this regard is the disobedience of the accursed Iblis to Allah's command to prostrate to Adam, due to arrogance, as has been pointed out before. Therefore, the most important reason underlying people's denial or rebellion for a psychological reason is this state of asceticism and independence. For this reason, these two concepts should be well known together with their psychological expansions. In today's terms, we can summarize it as ego or self/self-sense.
As reported in the hadith of Jibril, one of the main issues of Sufism, which we can describe as the science of gaining the rank of ihsan (goodness), which is one of the three basic principles on which Islam is built, is the control of the nafs, that is, the ego. This is the underlying reason why the science of Sufism is called purification of the soul or purification of the heart. The first obstacle in front of a person's belief is that he sees himself as independent and arrogant. The etymological and Qur'anic equivalents of these words occupy a very large place in Islamic science literature, especially in tafsir and mysticism books. One of the greatest representatives of the Islamic scientific tradition, Imam Ghazali's Ihya is one of the most important examples of this literature.
One of the important psychological reasons that the Qur'an underlines regarding unbelief is the state of being subject to the whims of the human soul. The verse "But he inclined towards the world and followed his whims”(116) points to this fact. Therefore, when a person is under the control of his tastes and desires, he thinks that the prohibitions and rules of religion prevent him from acting as he wishes. As a result of this, if a person is determined to follow his nafs, he either commits this haram (forbidden) knowing that his deed is a sin and continues his life by taking a sinful servant, or he mostly abandons religion completely and enters into the service of his nafs and whims. The Qur'an expresses this truth in the form of taking one's desire as his god with the following sentences: "Have you seen the one who takes his desire as his god?(117)
Will you be a deputy over him?" This analogy is one of the good examples of the Qur'anic ijaz (art of telling many things by little words), language and eloquence. While a person idolizes his soul and desires, most of the time he does not even realize that he has put his desires in the place of God. He just thinks that he is fulfilling his pleasure. However, a person who takes his passion as his god is a slave to his desires and passions, whether he is aware of it or not. If a person who pursues his whims and desires is told that he worships his whim, he will most likely reject it. The truth is, as Allah reveals in the Qur'an, a person who pursues his desires, instead of obeying and serving the orders of his Lord, worships and serves his passions, following his desire.
The philosophical expression of the pursuit of pleasures since ancient Greece is hedonism. This means putting pleasure and taste at the center of life. While trying to obtain the things that he enjoys, he tries to avoid the things that cause him pain. In this sense, it is not enough to see the issue only as the satisfaction of the desires of the soul. At the same time, it should be taken into account that what is enjoyed may vary from person to person. In this sense, it is known that philosophy talks about different pleasure theories. Some of these may be lowly desires related to lust, while others may be more spiritual and sublime desires related to the pleasures of the soul.
Islam considers benefiting from worldly blessings as valuable as worship, depending on its place. The important thing is not to overstep the bounds and to take advantage of the blessing without forgetting its true owner. Many verses of the Qur’an clearly point to this truth(118). The point is that there is no curtain between the servant of the world and his Lord. For this reason, when describing the world, the Sufis describe it as "the thing that takes man away from God"(119). Mevlana explains how the world is a curtain between his Lord and his servant, through the metaphor of water and ship. While water is carrying the ship on it, when it enters it, it causes it to sink. A healthy relationship with the world should be like this, the world should carry it and serve it before it enters the heart(120).
(115) Alak 96:6-7.
(116) A'râf 7:176.
(117) Furkan 25:43.
(118) A'raf 7:176.
(119) Ramazan Altıntaş, "The Name of Forgetting Allah: Worldly Belief", in Problems of Belief in the Modern Age, p. 45-49, here p. 47.
(120) See. Altıntaş, “The name of forgetting Allah: Secularization”, p. 48.
Despite all divine and prophetic warnings, man's sole purpose may be to pursue his pleasures and lusts and to satisfy these desires. Lusts also differ from each other in relation to human desires and desires. The Freudian approach tries to explain them mostly around the concept of sex drive and libido. Even in the parent-child relationship, this is the main impulse. Therefore, it is assumed that the main determining factor in all human relations is the sexual drive. This is the reason for existence and living. However, religions offer man to be a servant to his Lord, who created himself and the whole world, instead of being the servant of his soul. They declare that only in this way can true freedom be won. According to Islam, true freedom, eternal peace and bliss can be achieved by freeing oneself from the yoke of the soul, desires and wishes, and becoming a servant to the Lord.
In another verse about those who take their desires as their deity, the following is stated: "Imagine a person who puts his desires in the place of God, and whom Allah misleads himself (because he chooses to stray) despite his knowledge, seals his ears and heart, and puts a veil over his eyes! Then who will guide him? Don't you think?"(121)
(121) Furkan 25:43.
In this verse, it is stated that real freedom will be possible by getting rid of the bondage of the soul. It is reported that the hearts and ears of these people are sealed, and thus they are deprived of hearing and understanding the truth. The meaning of desires and lust has a large place in our literature on Sufism and morality. Therefore, all desires, lusts, ambitions and goals that prevent people from worshiping their Lord are handled under this category.
Another psychological version of disbelief can be identified as imitation. Some people may prefer disbelief by imitating others. They imitate anyone they love or trust as an authority, without any thought or inference of their own. In his famous book Tehâfütü'l-felâsife, in which he criticizes philosophers, Ghazali draws attention to this point and talks about how people who do not know the truth of the matter fall into disbelief by imitating philosophers
CONCLUSION
In this article, which we named as the philosophical foundations of unbelief, it was tried to point out the different expansions of the word unbelief. In particular, within the framework of Islamic theology, what is unbelief is briefly summarized through certain concepts such as ilhad, dehriyye and heresy. It was pointed out that unbelief is as old as the history of religions and philosophy, and the situations described as unbelief differ from religion to religion according to the perception of religion.
It is obvious that there is a vast accumulation and literature on the philosophical reasons for disbelief. Therefore, the field of research was limited to three philosophical dimensions in order to deal with the subject in a healthy way without bogging down on the details. These reasons for disbelief were identified as ontological, epistemological and psychological reasons.
It has been explained how the philosophy of existence and knowledge are in a relationship at the point of grounding unbelief. In order to evaluate these views from the perspective of Islamic scientific tradition, the views of Mustafa Sabri Efendi, one of the last Ottoman Şeyhülislams, (formal religious authority) who had the most comprehensive study on this subject, were consulted. At the same time, the Qur'anic foundations of these issues that shaped Islamic thought were pointed out.
In addition to what we have said, another conclusion that can be made in summary is, in our opinion, the following: The truth that is not fully named at the root of such problems of disbelief is the perception of religion as the biggest obstacle to people's living as they want. Whether this is handled on an individual or societal basis, the result does not change. A person does not want any restrictions to be imposed on the way to any goal he wants to achieve in order to satisfy his own ego and desires. Belief in God and religion is the most serious obstacle in front of this. The capitalist and materialist modern worldview also sees religion and tradition as the biggest obstacle to achieving their goals. For this reason, they support liberal and humanist ideas that support unbelief in the name of human freedom.
In our age, in which perceptions of belief related to life take on a very complex structure, of course, the foundations of unbelief are not limited to what can be determined here. It is our main goal that this study will open the door to more comprehensive evaluations and analyzes to be made in this sense.
The world view of Islam has made man superior to all creatures and made him the representative of his Lord on earth. For a person who accepts this duty voluntarily, religion and the messenger who brought it are indispensable for happiness both in this world and in the hereafter.
In the Qur'an, Allah states that "hearts find peace only with the remembrance of Allah"(122) and informs us that true happiness is only possible by surrendering to a religion that is heralded as Islam (related to Peace), its preacher Salam (related to Peace), and its messenger, "And we sent you only as a mercy (related to Peace), to the worlds"(123)
The religion of Islam, which is based on the principle of reasonableness, is equipped with all kinds of equipment against this danger of disbelief that threatens all humanity and especially young minds. Other religions, such as Christianity, do not have inexplicable dogmas and an inhuman history that they are unable to explain. If we can use the blessing of reason, which is a divine grace, in the right place, all the claims made by atheists and disbelief are doomed to fall one by one. What is needed for this is the heartbroken soldiers who are familiar with the language and spirit of the time, familiar with the problems brought by the century, and who can evaluate the issue on the axis of mind-revelation and on the plan of the heart.
(122) Ra'd 13:28
(123) Anbiya 21:107
Germany 30.04.2022