La ilaha illallah: Negating gods before Affirming God (Allah)
Dr. Ali Mermer
We must establish la ilaha illallah on a foundation we are personally convinced of. This is so that our belief and, consequently, our religious life is not based on a repetition of words, but a grounded conclusion which is: nothing in this world has the capacity to bring anything into existence—not even itself—except the Source of Existence of the universe.
In other words, while our declaration of la ilaha illallah may stem from a conclusion and a trust in its logical consistency, it should also provide real, lived meaning and support as we navigate the path of knowing God (ma’rifatullah). We must reach a point where we are deeply satisfied both intellectually and spiritually based on evidence that the One who gave us existence must also be the Owner of the entire universe. Every engagement we have with creation then becomes an opportunity to remain in communication with the Creator.
When we say, “Everything in this realm declares (tasbih) His existence,” we often refer to the physical objects themselves. However, the existence of their properties also requires reflection. For example, when we acknowledge that the human being is created perfectly, we must also recognize that it’s not just their form, but their features that require explanation: sight, hearing, thinking, consciousness, innumerable feelings, sweating, movement, and countless others abilities. Some of these functions seem to be performed by organs composed of tissues, cells, and particles—none of which truly have the capacity to perform these actions. They are simply mindless matter. Just as the parts of a machine cannot be the maker of the machine’s function, the matter within our bodies cannot be the source of the incredible harmony and immaterial human qualities we observe on them. This is because they only appear to perform functions (i.e. power, knowledge, and free will, etc) while having no qualities in themselves to truly bring about such effects.
To have a solid base for belief in the Source of Existence of the entire universe, we must first investigate the existence of matter and, more importantly, its properties. The existence of matter is unconditionally dependent on the simultaneous existence of certain essential attributes. In other words, matter exists with its properties: motion, rotation, attraction, adaptation, change, communication—even life in some cases.
Matter cannot exist without orderliness, nor can orderliness exist without matter. This means that for an animate being to survive, it needs to exist with life and all of its perfect qualities in existence. For example, the question of what came first—the chicken or the egg is often one that appears to be a paradox. The question itself is based on the premise that the existence of one can bring about the existence of the other. Let’s take a closer look to investigate.
A chicken must exist with all the features that make it a chicken—that is, its body, feathers, wings, ability to walk, cluck, peck, and lay eggs. Likewise, an egg must also exist with all the features that make it an egg—its shell, inner and outer membranes, yolk, egg white, and the quality of potential life. Their material beings and features exist together, dependent on one another.
Now, can the body of the chicken/egg itself truly be the producer of life for itself, let alone the future egg/chicken that appears to come about from it? Can any part of the matter that makes up the chicken or the egg be the source of the existence of the features of orderliness or life? Can anything that is dependent bring about the existence of anything else? Impossible! If matter requires that its very being exist simultaneously with these attributes, how can it then be regarded as the source of existence of the very attributes it is dependent on?
This question poses a serious dilemma for reason and logic alike. It constitutes not only an ontological inconsistency but also a blatant contradiction against rational thought. To defend such a claim is to deny both the principles of reasoning and the very foundations of the concept of existence itself. Such a view assumes what it seeks to explain. It is obvious that this understanding is logically inconsistent. Then, where do these properties actually come from?
In truth, the chicken and the egg are not a paradox but a sign of impossibility. Neither comes first; both must be given existence together, in perfect form and harmony in order to survive at every stage of their existence, by the same One who continuously creates the entire cosmos in orderly fashion. Their interdependence points not to circular logic but to the necessity of a Creator who gives existence to both, within the order of a perfectly functioning and meaningful universe.
This means that what needs to be questioned is existence itself. When we ask why the properties of things exist, the only reasonable answer that satisfies both logic and heart is this: there must be an Absolute Being—conscious, infinitely willful, independently existent, and not of the nature of the universe. Seeking the cause of existence within the universe leads only to contradictions. It is only logically consistent to infer that the Source must necessarily lie outside of the qualities of the created realm. Nothing subject to change, limitation, or rules can be said to be self-existent. We cannot explain existence at all in any other way.
Just as an artful painting cannot be made by the paint, canvas, or frame itself, the artist behind it cannot be defined by its parts. The existence of the artist needs to be expressed with completely opposite qualities. Similarly, the Creator of the universe cannot be defined by the qualities of the beings which need to be created. He is known in His indescribability, meaning that He cannot be reduced to the terms of His creation. Attempting to define Him by the properties of the universe would be a categorical error, as it conflates the contingent with the Necessary Being.
Take the often-used analogy of the universe as a meaningful book: the relationship between ink and paper and the meaning it conveys is crucial. We know that ink and paper do not produce meaning. Meaning comes from a conscious being—an author. The author of the book must be one who is entirely different from the nature of the ink, paper, and the book’s material properties. Claiming that the universe, which is infinitely more meaningful than a book, created itself is completely illogical. It is only logically consistent that the Source of the universe’s body (its material existence and its meaningful qualities) must be the One who gives it its entire existence from the beginning to the end. Human reason compels us to acknowledge that the One who gave existence to the universe—which constantly changes in its qualities and form—must be completely independent of and unbound by its nature.
Those who claim that things created themselves or came to be through “chance,” “nature,” or “instinct” are left to defend modern myths. They describe a universe that formed order through billions of accidents and now strives to survive by adapting and evolving by itself as if it’s a conscious being with infinite qualities. Claims that order can “emerge” from initial randomness can only be myths and baseless assumptions—not explanations. Such assertions are nothing more than desperate attempts lacking any substantive foundation.
Muslim thinkers who enumerate the attributes of God begin with: Existent, Pre-Eternal, Post-Eternal, and so on and so forth. Notice how “Existent” is placed first. When we say “He is the Existent One,” we innately wonder: “How does He exist? In what way?”
Let us explore these questions: The Existent One is One Whose existence I am certain of, but Whose essence I cannot define. Not being able to define the essence of the Creator because He is not of the same essence as His creation does not negate His necessary existence. Thinkers have sought to articulate this concept through the term wājib al-wujūd—the One whose existence is necessary in and of itself. This necessary Being cannot be described in the terms applicable to the contingent world He creates, just as an author cannot be characterized by the material properties of the book he writes. Nevertheless, the structured information within the book undeniably points to the existence of its author.
So, affirming the necessary existence (wājib al-wujūd) and the absoluteness of the Creator is, in fact, the innate consequence of being a reasoning, conscious human. Any other claim or vague compromise undermines our own rational integrity.
The Qur’anic expression la ilaha illallah powerfully teaches this principle. Nothing in the universe can be the cause of its own existence, for it must first exist with qualities needed to sustain its existence in order to create. La ilaha means precisely this. Illallah then affirms the sole, absolute Source of existence of all that exists with their properties. This Being is referred to in various traditions with different names such as God (English), Allah (Arabic), Elohim (Hebrew), and Dieu (French). He is the only One worthy of recognition, worship, and absolute trust.