Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
“Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)
Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Reflect deeply upon the creation, but do not reflect upon the essence of the Creator. Verily, His essence cannot be known other than to believe in it.”
Source: (Musnad al-Rabī’ 742 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَلْقِ وَلا تَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَالِقِ فَإِنَّهُ لا يُدْرَكُ إِلا بِتَصْدِيقِهِ 742 مسند الربيع بن حبيب 2976 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن في صحيح الجامع)
﷽
This is a (PrimaQur’an) critique of it. So, rather than this being any robust response or engagement from our school, this is an endeavor from a team of non-specialists in philosophy.
The arguments contained here are by no means original from us either. However, this article is sprinkled with our thoughts and conclusions when looking at this particular approach to theology.
For those not formally trained traditionally or academically in theology or philosophy, it is also by no means a deep dive. These are very elementary critiques that we think would appear before any seasoned mind.
Apophatic theology is another name for theology by way of negation. From the Greek ἀπόφημι (apóphemi) ‘to say no’. This is to say that God is known by negating concepts that might apply to him using the insufficiency of human language and rational concepts to describe God.
Ultimately, it is the theology of making no affirmative or positive attributes or assertions of any kind about God. That God is so completely unknowable that we can only engage in conversation about the divine by means of negation. What God is not.
Hopefully, one might appreciate the irony in such an approach, in that both negative and positive statements about God are both equal propositions about divine nature. One is put forward in the positive and the other in the negative. For apophatic theologians, ultimately they must take on the mantle of mysterions and appreciate the complete mystery, otherness and unknowability of God rather than say what could lead to misleading theological concepts about God.
One of our colleagues has said before in this article about an encounter they had while giving a guided tour of a Masjid where a man from California just out of nowhere blurted out the statement: “There is no truth, nothing is true!”
So they turned to the man and said: “Is that true?”
It entails a logical contradiction. It is a logical contradiction because we can be certain that we do not know anything for certain. Which in turn renders our uncertainty very uncertain itself!
Rather, one states that a triangle has three sides or one states that it does not have three sides. Both statements, rather positive or negative, are still both propositions.
” That you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
So you could approach this statement: “and that you say about Allah that which you do not know,” from two angles.
Both angles do not support apophatic theology at all.
The first approach may seem clever. That would be to question: “What is it that we actually know about Allah?” They would affirm: “We do not know anything about Allah.” The proponents of apophatic theology would begin with negations.
What is it that we actually know about Allah? Which entails the opposite of an Apophatic theological approach.
What we say about Allah that which we do not know itself entails there are things that we do know about Allah.
You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.
How can we say in any consistent and meaningful way what God is not like unless we have a model or conception of what God is like?
What is a hamburger not like?
How could one provide an answer to this question unless he/she has some idea of what a hamburger is like?
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” (Qur’an 42:11)
This verse poses a number of problems for proponents of apophatic theology.
The verse does not negate Allah (swt) being a ‘shay’. It simply states that there is no shay like unto him.
The verse in context then affirms that Allah (swt) is the Hearing the Seeing. Thus, it immediately supplies us with two affirmations about Him.
So even if we give ta’wil interpretations to Hearing, Seeing and Him, they would be interpretations that would tell us something about Allah (swt).
This immediately shows that apophatic theology is inherently contradictory. In saying that God is unknowable or inexpressible, we have already described God’s nature that it is unknowable and inexpressible, thus asserting propositions about God.
Just as they would when trying to exegete the above text of the Qur’an.
In fact, apophatic theology is not something that can be derived from revelation as one of the purposes of revelation is to tell us the will of God.
Apophatic theology cannot affirm a will for God. Therefore, apophatic theology is an exercise in philosophy(not a belief in revealed revelation).
It relies upon using the very limitations of 3D carbon-based lifeforms, existing in the space/time continuum equipped only with their very limited abilities of perception and reason — via a 3D carbon-based lifeform -via from the vantage point of existing in the space/time continuum.
In apophatic or negative theology, we cannot know or affirm that Allah is Love. We do not know or cannot affirm that Allah is Loving.
We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Muhammed (saw).
We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Ali ibn Abu Talib.
We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves the Ahl Bayt.
At best, we could still advance propositions: Allah is not hateful. Allah does not hate.
Allah does not hate Muhammed (saw).
Allah does not hate Ali.
Allah does not hate the Ahl Bayt.
Because just as Allah (swt) does not love Muhammed (saw) or love Ali or love the Ahl Bayt, he does not hate any of them either.
The greatest mysterions are those who can give no definite propositional answers about God at all!
In fact, in negative theology, God may not be simple at all. Because to state that God is simple is a positive statement.
God is possibly more complex and more complicated than anything we could imagine. Hence, the very premise of apophatic theology could, in a very real sense, be self-defeating.
Ultimately, it is a belief in an unknown ‘other’ that one cannot explicate. Rendering itself more complicated than the Trinitarian Athanasian creed by far!
Because this concept (which is what it is at this point) is completely unknowable, it gets to the point of asking rather or not if it is even God we are talking about.
We could, for all intents and purposes, talk about God-1.
In other words, the philosophers could have beguiled themselves into believing in an entity that is God in every aspect except the most important, ‘the unknowability’. Surely this itself presents a conundrum.
We simply would not have a basis for knowing at all.
We could simply be talking about a being or entity that is beyond our capacity to fathom but would still not necessitate that entity being God/Allah.
That is because, ultimately, in negative theology, God cannot be perceived and is not perceivable.
We cannot say anything in relation to God and space/time. We cannot really say anything in relation to God and God’s relation to any creation. Because we would not have the slightest clue what a relationship would be like.
Allah is nothing? Allah is something? Allah is everything? Which is correct?
Which of the statements has textual support from the Qur’an?
“Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)
The above text clearly states in response to the question of what thing has most weight in testimony that Allah (swt) is that thing which has most weight in testimony.
There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is no-thing.
There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is everything. This too would be defeated by logic as there would not be a creator-created distinction.
Apophatic theology leads to bizarre, contradictory conclusions about the attributes of God.
We cannot say that God Creates Perfection.
We cannot say that God Creates Perfection because we cannot say that God Creates at all.
There are also problems with affirmation of negatives to Allah/God.
So when we don’t say that Allah is Hate or Allah is Love. We can only say that Allah does not Hate and Allah does not Love.
But can we affirm the negatives for the following?
Does God have power and control over himself? Is this something to affirm or negate?
Does God have autonomy?
Does God have sovereignty?
Because the moment we assert negative prepositions for these questions, we are now introducing another force besides God.
If you say that the Divine Essence is not autonomous or not sovereign, then this necessitates another actor.
So, logic dictates that we must assert that the Divine Essence has the positive attributes of Autonomy and Sovereignty at the very least; or we are now redirecting our conversation and our interest away from this supposed ‘God’ to that force that God submits to.
Another conundrum of this philosophical discourse is that if this God has the qualities of essence, the very fact there is conversation concerning it makes it among the categories of things that conversation is being held concerning. Even if the conversation is philosophical or speculative in nature.
In other words, another defeat for apophatic theology is that God is being discussed, even if it is only in the sense of negation. Thus, we are affirming a positive about God. That positive being that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.
We can only discuss subjects that have come to our consciousness. Even if those subjects are abstract concepts like time, infinity and nothingness.
We are using language to describe, negate or affirm the concept just as we would use language to negative or affirm any other thing.
So apophatic theology is helpless to deny that God is beyond the realm of pontification, reflection or discussion, or it would render its own position vain. This is because apophatic theologians themselves discuss, pontificate and muse over what is not God.
Apophatic Theology and Proving Negatives.
Apophatic theologians think they can make negative assertions about God without having to prove those negative assertions.
This gets into the debate we have with atheists, where (the uneducated among them) state one cannot prove a negative.
For one thing, a real actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
This law states that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law.
For example: the very statement: “you cannot prove a negative” is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true!
Here is another negative we can prove via mathematics.
There is no rational number whose square is 2.
Thank you, Andrei S!
So, when making negative statements about God. God is not like this and God is not like that. What is the contrast?
Remember the earlier question:
What is a hamburger not like?
You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.
This would lead us to some intrusive and counter-intuitive conclusions. Such as the bizarre perspective that perhaps the one who has never ever thought about God is the closest to the truth concerning God.
Here we are not talking about the Atheist who has made a propositional stance against God. Here we are talking about such a hypothetical person that has never considered God at all.
Recall that even apophatic theologians are among those who believe that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.
Apophatic Theology Is Hostile Towards Certain aspects of Mysticism and Sufism in particular.
Those aspects of mysticism and Sufism that Apophatic Theology is a virulent enemy of the idea of Fan’a (annihilation of the self in the divine) or having a direct experience with the Divine. This is not possible and the aspirant, according to apophatic theology, is in a state of grand disillusionment. How would they objectively know that they have arrived? That arrival could be a veil itself and, in the face of apophatic theology, it most certainly is.
The argument from the Qur’an is that God must be something.
“Or were they created by no-thing (ghayri shayin), or are they ˹their own˺ creators?” (Qur’an 52:35)
A no-thing would be a non-shay. Non-existence. Unless one wants to argue that the Qur’an is utilizing a spacious argument. May Allah protect us from the Shaitan!
Why would the argument be used that they were created from nothing if the first creation was created from nothing?
Thus, logically, a true negative theology would entail that we cannot say anything about God, which ultimately you will see is the conclusion that many of them end up reaching, by stating that God does not exist (has existence).
Maybe their perspective is similar to the Ein-Sof of Kabbalist philosophy. Maybe they reduce the perceivably complex to the least complex. A name which is still a composite consisting of letters; such that to escape even that multiplicity in the naming of the nothing they chose ע
Even then, that is problematic.
The Christian tradition has the following:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:23)
If God is unlike anything that we can understand or relate to at all, then how could one justify any response to God? Prayer, worship, obeying his commands and shunning that which is prohibited?
“Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you.” (Qur’an 2:143)
Again, these are some of our initial thoughts on the subject.
The Claim: Apophaticism states that no positive predicate can be applied to God. God is beyond all human categories and language.
The Contradiction: To claim that “God is beyond all predicates” is itself a predicate. To say “God is unknowable” is to claim a piece of knowledge about God (namely, that He possesses the property of being unknowable). The statement “No statement about God is true” must, if true, apply to itself, rendering it false.
In essence, the apophatic approach attempts to use language to assert the failure of all language, which is a logical paradox. It tries to climb a ladder of negation and then kick it away, but the act of kicking it away is still a use of the ladder.
God, beyond being, must have the quality of being able to give or ground being.
As the philosopher Anthony Kenny quipped, “The God of the apophatic theologian and the God of the atheist seem to share a remarkable similarity.”
Meaningful negation logically depends on some prior understanding of what is being negated.
This leads to an infinite regress of negation: to negate a concept, you must use another concept, which you must then also negate, ad infinitum. This process can never logically conclude, as every step requires a conceptual framework that the theory itself claims is invalid.
The Unjustified Starting Assumption
The entire apophatic edifice is built on one key premise: that the human mind is utterly incapable of forming any true concepts about a transcendent God.
This is an epistemological claim presented as an absolute truth. However, it is not logically proven within the system; it is merely asserted.
A critic can ask: How do you know that human concepts are entirely inadequate? To know this would require having access to God’s nature to compare it to our concepts, which is precisely what the apophatic theologian claims is impossible.
Therefore, the foundational premise of apophaticism is both unproven and, by its own standards, unknowable.
Self-Referential Problem
If we say “God is ineffable” or “God cannot be described,” we are still making a positive assertion about God.
This seems self-contradictory: the claim “God cannot be spoken of” is itself a way of speaking about God.
Epistemic Vacuity
If all positive descriptions are denied, what content remains to distinguish God from nothingness?
A purely negative theology risks collapsing into nihilism: saying “God is not this, not that” could equally describe a void or absence.
This makes it hard to explain how believers know they are actually speaking of God rather than simply of “not-X”.
Dependence on Positive Knowledge
Negation requires a prior positive reference. To say “God is not finite,” one must know what “finite” means and apply it meaningfully.
Thus, negation parasitically depends on the very affirmations it claims to reject.
Pure apophaticism may be logically impossible without at least some cataphatic (positive) foundation.
Oh Allah, if anything that was penned by us was in error, we turn ourselves over to your Mercy. You, the knower of intentions.
With Allah (swt) is success.
May Allah Guide the Ummah.
May Allah Forgive the Ummah.
Prima Quran 