Substantiating the Islamic Creed with Pramanas

Islam answers certain pressing ontological questions on the existence of God, life after death and divine revelation. But since all these concepts lie in the realm of ghaib, we require certain epistemological tools to substantiate them - to answer the question, ‘How do we know them to be true?’

For this, let us turn to our own country's ancient epistemological tools, the pramanas, and check how they might help us in substantiating the Islamic creed.

In Indian philosophy, Pramanas refer to the ‘means of knowledge’ or the ‘criteria’ that we use in the study of how we know what we know, and what constitutes a valid source of truth.

Here is a brief explanation of the six Pramanas.

1. Pratyaksha (Perception)

This is direct knowledge gained through the senses. It is considered the most fundamental Pramana because all other forms of knowledge often depend on it.

 * External Perception: Gained through the five senses (seeing a tree, smelling a flower).

 * Internal Perception: Gained through the mind (Manas), such as feeling happy, sad, or recognizing your own thoughts.

* Modern Equivalent: This aligns with Empiricism, championed by philosophers like John Locke and David Hume. It refers to "Sense Data" or "Perceptual Knowledge."

 

2. Anumana (Inference)

Inference is using observation to reach a conclusion about something not currently visible. It relies on a "universal relation" (Vyapti) between a sign and the object.

 * The Classic Example: You see smoke on a distant hill. Because you know from experience that "where there is smoke, there is fire," you infer that there is a fire on the hill even though you cannot see the flames.

 * Modern Equivalent: This maps directly to Deductive and Inductive Reasoning. In modern logic, we use syllogisms (e.g., All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal).

3. Upamana (Comparison & Analogy)

Upamana is knowledge gained by identifying similarities. It occurs when you understand an unknown object by comparing it to something you already know.

 * Example: Someone tells you that a "Gavaya" (a wild ox) looks like a domestic cow. When you later see a strange animal in the forest that resembles a cow, you realize, "This must be a Gavaya."

 * Modern Equivalent: This is Analogical Reasoning or Reasoning by Model.

4. Arthapatti (Postulation / Presumption)

This is a "circumstantial" means of knowledge. It is used when a known fact cannot be explained without assuming another fact.

 * Example: You know that a person named Devadatta is alive, but he is not at home. To resolve this contradiction, you must presume he is somewhere else outside. Without this "postulation," the facts don't make sense.

 * Modern Equivalent: This is very similar to Abduction (a term coined by Charles Sanders Peirce) or Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE).

 * Key Similarity: It’s the "detective's logic"—finding the only hypothesis that makes sense of the available facts.

5. Anupalabdhi (Non-Presence)

This is the knowledge of non-existence or the absence of something. It argues that not perceiving something where it should be is a valid way to know it isn't there.

 * Example: You look at a table and notice there is no jar on it. You "perceive" the absence of the jar. This isn't just a lack of sight; it is a specific cognitive conclusion that the object is absent.

6. Shabda (Verbal Testimony)

Shabda is knowledge gained from reliable words, either spoken or written. In Indian philosophy, this is divided into two categories:

 * Laukika: Testimony from a trustworthy person (like a doctor or an expert).

 * Vaidika: Scriptural testimony (the Vedas), which is considered "Apaurusheya" (not of human origin) and thus inherently true in spiritual matters.

 * Modern Equivalent: This is known as Testimony in modern epistemology. Philosophers like C.A.J. Coady argue that most of what we know (science, history, geography) is actually based on the "word" of others, not our own direct experience.

 * Key Similarity: Both ask the same critical question: What makes a source "reliable" (an 'Apta')?

Application to the Islamic Creed

When applied to the Islamic creed, these frameworks offer a structured way to understand how Muslims justify belief in the unseen (Al-Ghayb).

1. Shabda (Verbal Testimony)

This is the primary pramana for the Islamic faith. In Islam, knowledge of the "unseen"—God’s essence, the details of the afterlife, and the existence of angels—is not accessible via the five senses.

 * Application: The Quran is viewed as the "Speech of God" (Kalam-Allah). Because the source is considered infallible and "Apta" (a trustworthy authority), the information it provides about God and the Hereafter is accepted as valid knowledge through Shabda.

 * Prophethood: The message of a Prophet is a form of Shabda. His truthfulness is often established through miracles, which act as credentials for his testimony.

2. Anumana (Inference)

While Shabda provides the details, Anumana is used by Islamic theologians (Mutakallimun) to argue for the existence of God.

 * Cosmological Argument: If we see smoke, we infer fire. Similarly, if we see a complex, ordered universe (the Effect), we infer a "Necessary Existent" or Creator (the Cause). 

 * Prophethood: If a person brings a message that transforms society and performs acts beyond human capability, one infers that they must be supported by a divine power.

 * If the universe has a beginning and a complex design, it implies a Purpose. A purpose without a final "result" or "audit" (Akhirah) is a logical contradiction.

3. Arthapatti (Postulation/Presumption)

Arthapatti is used to resolve a "puzzling fact" by assuming a necessary truth.

 * Application: If the universe is finite and dependent, but it exists anyway, we must postulate an Independent Being to explain its existence. Contingency theory - all things are contingent, and require an ultimate Necessary Being to create them.

 * Revelation: If a Prophet who was unlettered produces a book of unparalleled linguistic and legal depth, Arthapatti suggests that the source must be divine, as there is no other logical way to explain the book's origin.

 * We see "Injustice" in the world (the tyrant dies wealthy; the saint dies suffering). To resolve the contradiction between a Just Creator and an unjust world, one must postulate a Day of Judgement.

4. Upamana (Comparison/Analogy)

In Islamic theology, God is unlike anything in creation (Laisaka mithlihi shay). However, Upamana is used in teaching.

 * Application: The Quran uses parables (analogies) to explain the Hereafter. For example, the revival of dead, dry earth after rainfall is used as an analogy for the resurrection of human bodies on the Day of Judgment.

 * The Qur'an compares the second creation to the first: "As We began the first creation, We will repeat it" (21:104). If the first was possible, the second is similarly possible.

5. Pratyaksha (Perception)

While God cannot be seen, Pratyaksha applies to the Signs of God (Ayat).

 * Application: Observing the orbits of planets, the growth of a fetus, or the beauty of nature is a "perceptual" experience. In Islamic thought, these sensory observations are the raw data that Anumana (inference) then uses to reach the conclusion of a Creator.

 * The Qur'an asks us to observe the revival of dead earth after rain (41:39). This sensory evidence of "life after death" in nature serves as a visible prototype for human resurrection.

6. Anupalabdhi (Non-Presence)

This pramana is used to establish the Unity of God (Tawheed).

 * Application: If there were multiple gods, we would see "non-presence" of order (i.e., we would see chaos or conflicting laws of nature). The fact that we do not perceive such chaos is used as proof that multiple gods do not exist.

 * Our inability to find "ultimate justice" in this physical world proves that it does not exist here, implying its existence must be in another realm.

Tools the Qur'an Uses to Argue for Akhirah

The Qur'an does not simply demand "blind faith"; it uses several rhetorical and logical "tools" to convince the human mind.

A. The Argument of First Creation (Power)

The most common tool is the appeal to Divine Capability. The Qur'an addresses the skeptic who asks, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?" (36:78).

 * Logic: The one who created you from nothing the first time finds it even "easier" to bring you back a second time.

 

B. The Argument of Natural Cycles (Empiricism)

The Qur'an uses the earth as a living laboratory.

> "And among His signs is that you see the earth barren; but when We send down upon it rain, it stirs and grows. Indeed, He who gives it life is the Giver of life to the dead." (41:39)

 * The Tool: Using Pratyaksha (direct observation) of the seasons to normalize the idea of life emerging from "death."

C. The Argument of Moral Necessity (Justice)

The Qur'an asks a rhetorical question: "Do you think that We created you without purpose?" (23:115).

 * The Tool: It argues that if there is no Judgement, then "good" and "evil" are ultimately equal—which is an absurdity. Therefore, a Day of Distinction (Yaum al-Furqan) is a moral necessity.

D. The Argument of Cosmic Scale (Grandeur)

To humble the human ego, the Qur'an points to the stars: "The creation of the heavens and earth is greater than the creation of mankind" (40:57).

 * The Tool: If God can manage the complex physics of the entire cosmos, re-assembling a human being is a minor task in comparison.

Summary of Quranic Tools:

 * Rhetorical Questions: Forcing the listener to reach their own conclusion.

 * Analogies: Using the known (nature) to explain the unknown (afterlife).

 * Moral Intuition: Appealing to the innate human desire for justice.

 * Scientific Reflection: Highlighting the stages of human embryonic development as proof of a purposeful design.

Conclusion:

It should be known that there is no proof of ghaib, nor can there ever be. Ghaib, by definition, needs to be believed. Ghaib ceases to be ghaib the moment it is proved. But the Islamic creed is not blind faith either; both ancient and modern epistemological tools can be very efficiently employed to argue that it is overwhelmingly the most likely probability, and that the probability of anything else happening is so infinitesimal that those can be easily rejected as false. 

- Dr. Parvez Mandviwala