The Burhān: Arguments for a Necessary Being Inspired by Islamic Thought

by Mohammed Hijab

In The Burhān Mohammed Hijab analyses Ibn Sīnā’s argument for the existence of God. Regarded as being most invulnerable to any type of counterattack, Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān argument postulates that a reality with only contingent existences is inconceivable, as a contingent existence cannot cause itself. Ibn Sīnā argues that the only way to explain the existence of anything is to postulate the existence of an uncaused necessary being, or a wājib al-wujūd (‘necessary existence’). However, despite its impact, the Burhān has not been packaged for apologetic use for a modern audience.

Hijab’s novel contribution to the discourse surrounding God’s existence is found in his re-articulation of Ibn Sīnā’s argument, making it accessible for theists to make the case for God. Using the Burhān as his guide, Hijab provides his own proofs for the necessary existence of God and answers some of the most prominent objections. Hijab applies the arguments for a necessary being to potential pastoral and apologetic settings using two fictitious characters, Richard and Betty.

Genres: Islam, Philosophy, Religion, Atheism

Paperback

Published December 15, 2021

Reviews

[Zaid · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a fantastic read. You can see how educated the author is by simply reading this book. the way the book is articulated proves that author is very well versed in the said field. great read for both atheists and religious people :)

[Hatem Al moqri · Rating 2 out of 5]

One of the worst books I have ever read and I was planning to write a point by point correction of the misinformation within the book unfortunately I don't have the will power to write a 10-30 page to refute a 60 page booklet however i will summarise the issues


-badly wrriten in pseudo academic language

-bad translations of the paragraphs he translated from ibn sina

-the book tries to do many things and does non well

- misunderstanding his own sources (such al ghazali and ibn taymiyyah)

-adopting weak or contradictory metaphysical/theological stances



I developed a strong dislike to Muhammad hijab while reading however I still respect and love the dude unfortunately I'm not going to read any more of his books and I recommend everyone else to not read any of his works either

[T · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant work by a qualified expert on the subject. The use of Betty and Richard as real-life case studies could have used further explication. Overall however, superb job making advanced philosophy accessible to laypeople. This is a book to be studied, rather than read quickly.

[B · Rating 1 out of 5]

1/5
This book deserves this rating for several reasons. It provides a basic argument which only needed a single page to explain. Because it was based on long passages from the Burhan, I can understand a 5-page explanation but it extended far too long. The argument is so incredibly simple that all pages until Chapter 5 can be reduced to one page. If you want to know the argument, read only the introduction and perhaps chapter 1 if you still want more.

I disliked two things regarding tone and style. Firstly, the apologetic attitude that you arbitrarily pick a belief and spend the rest of your life defending it was pervasive throughout. Secondly, there was too much pseudo-academic language which described simple terms with unnecessary words.

I was most excited about chapter 5 which was about objections to the argument, but this may have been the poorest because it attacked the weakest possible objections to the Burhan argument.

This book was centered around the logic of the Contingency Argument, but half of the arguments' premises are the conclusions. For example, one of them is the assumed premises is that an infinite chain of causes is impossible, which is actually the conclusion (proving a supreme cause ad absurdum). The syllogisms in this book are all valueless. You cannot prove God through 3-line syllogisms.

Even though the characters Richard and Betty were created for apologetic purposes (which I didn't like), I would have loved to see dialogue or any discussion between them but the most we get is a couple small mentions which led nowhere.

There is only a single argument I found logical which was the one about proving monotheism having assumed a supreme cause exists.

Here are extra thoughts:
1. It is undoubtedly true in the Burhan argument that there must be some logic-defying leap to make sense of the infinite chain of causes. The Burhan argument states that there must be some single cause which has always existed and never was caused by any other cause - a “necessary” cause. However, this argument denies the fact that the existence of a necessary cause is a logic-defying leap - as grand as the alternative of infinite contingencies that the Burhan tries to refute. A supreme existence begs the question of how it could exist in the first place. Similarly, infinite contingencies are not possible without a single supreme cause which starts the chain. My point: this is a paradox which is pointless to consider.

2. The Burhan can also be folded on itself because it does not, and cannot specify the nature of this supreme cause. The only description given is that it must be the cause on which all others are contingent on, without being caused by anything else. Ironically, an infinite chain of contingencies satisfies this definition (of a supreme cause) because an infinite chain can be caused by both another infinite chain (which is the same chain) and a supreme cause. Furthermore, an infinite chain has no beginning or end and therefore, logically, does not have an initial cause. Just like a supreme cause. My point: the Burhan is limited because it places the idea of a supreme cause in a black box which can argue in favor of every religion and even Atheism. Even though Hijab knows it’s a black box, he falsely assumes anything in the black box would be of a theistic/deistic nature.

3. The blind sightedness and propensity of a person to call an infinity impossible is utterly and entirely a matter of phenomenology. Take the example of Hilbert’s Grand Hotel paradox. A lay person finds this impossible but someone with a background in math or has dealt with infinities will understand it easily.

I don’t take the side of infinite causes. I am simply demonstrating that to consider the problem of contingencies as the proof of anything is foolish. It’s without value and should never be discussed. Finally, word salads should not be how you determine truth and value but through personal experience. Like in mathematics, zero (paradoxes) can be used to prove anything.

My opinion of this book has nothing to do with any religion.

[ARHAM MOIN · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a great book that packs a lot into the space of quite a few pages. It introduces the reader to a vast array of theistic arguments made by various people of faith from Muslims, Christians and Jews. It also enables us to understand some of the terminologies used when discussing these questions.

The arguments proposed throughout the book are thorough and they call the reader to reflect.

I would say though, that this not a good book for starters, or those with little experience in philosophy and atheistic discussions. The discussions can be too conplex and confusing and one may come away with more mess in his head than clarity. Its a cautious, yet good read

[Marzan Mahmoud · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent work by Br. Hijab! I wish i found this book earlier when i was really confused about the concept of God. The contents are pretty well structured and properly explained. I highly recommend reading this book.

[Hridoy Chowdhury · Rating 3 out of 5]

A concise book but manages to deliver the message quite well.

[Selim Reza · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book represents cosmological and ontological argument for God inspired by Burhan of Ibn Sina in the philosophy of religion.

[Chudds · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a book, just his essays edited to make a book. The characters he made in the beginning could have had a lot of potential to explain his arguments better but he barely used them, giving each 2-3 sentences when mentioned. Great idea, bad execution.