Emphasizing God’s Sovereignty in our Apologetics
By Bassam ZawadiGod can assign any role or function to any being He creates. God could have decreed: “I declare every woman to be a housekeeper for all times and ages.” He could have also decreed: “I declare every husband be subservient to his wife” and fashioned men and women differently in terms of their biological makeup so that it makes perfect sense. It would not be contrary to His nature for Him to do so. No theological or philosophical objection shows why that could not have been the case.
Emotions aside, no rational argument could be mustered by a theologian or philosopher demonstrating why God could not have possibly legislated that. I mean, God created all theologians and philosophers, along with their rational faculties, no? He could have ‘tweaked’ their faculties in a way so that they reach the logical conclusions He desires, right? He could have instilled in us intuitions that incline toward accepting such things, correct? He is All-Powerful and All-Knowledgeable, and He could have accomplished that, right? Right.
Now, I certainly do believe that Allah سبحانه وتعالى would not create us and then obligate us to submit to legislations which are universally repulsive throughout the ages, as I believe this contradicts other things which He revealed about Himself, such as the elevation of the fitrah’s epistemic worth, His not asking us to shoulder a burden we cannot bear, the beauty and appeal of His revelation, etc.
Nevertheless, since life is a test, I am not surprised that Allah would test people by asking them to subdue their egos in the process of submitting to Him. The very egos that push them to think that their society’s moral standards are superior and correct. Those egos that drive them to follow moral precepts that facilitate the pursuit of their material desires. Their egos, which resist change and are protective of the understanding that their moral upbringing is superior.
It makes perfect sense to me that God would test His servants in this manner. It is clear to any truth seeker that moral particulars (i.e., the elucidation of broad moral universals such as justice, freedom, etc.,) cannot be deduced with certainty via our rationality alone. It is an observable fact to everyone that human beings disagree on significant moral issues across religions, cultures, etc. Divine revelation is required to settle several of these issues and draw some clear major boundaries (without needing to settle the debate on every single moral particular necessarily). And thus, to reject a religion primarily due to ethical objections without serious self-introspection is an illegitimate excuse. Correctly pondering upon this would make it much easier for many people to rationally come to grips with the notion of Hell and punishment of disbelief. [1]
I think several Muslim apologists need to drive this point home more strongly and not feel pressured to compromise and appear weak when addressing these ethical objections. If we feel the need to twist our religion’s teachings in order for them to be palatable to some individuals, then either those individuals are blameworthy, or those apologists are at fault for being too ignorant/cowardly/unskilled enough to explicate the essential foundational point on moral ontology and epistemology.
Being a Muslim requires that we submit to God, truly.
Praises be to Allah, the Perfect and Just Legislator.
[1] See my lecture: The Rationale of Hell in Islam. You can also read the transcript of the lecture over here.
Emphasizing God’s Sovereignty in our Apologetics
God can assign any role or function to any being He creates. God could have decreed: “I declare every woman to be a housekeeper for all times and ages.” He could have also decreed: “I declare every husband be subservient to his wife” and fashioned men and women differently in terms of their...
islamicdiscourse.substack.com
