Do humans need the realm of the unseen?
The unseen (al-ghaib) is one of the realms according to the Qur’an. The counterpart is the witnessed. The Qur’an repeatedly admonishes muslims to believe in the unseen. For example:
- Alif laam leeem; zaalikal kitaabu laa raiba fee, hudal lilmutaqeen; allazeena yu’minoona bilghabi wa yuqeemonas salaata, wa mimmaa razaqnahum yunfiqoon.
“… this is the sound book, guidance for believers. … believe in the unseen and establish prayer”
The theme of the unseen does not only occur in the Qur’an but also in other scripture. The Lord’s prayer (faith tradition of prophet Isa):
- Uw wil geschiede gelijk zo in de hemel als ook op de aarde (your command will be fulfilled, both in the heavens as on earth)
Belief in the unseen strengthens ethics. It is easier to maintain an attitude of patience when you believe that your actions are “saved.” Besides the salvation theme belief in the unseen seems almost necessary to function as a full human being in daily life. If you do not believe your home is still there when you do not see it it seems difficult how you can ever leave your home.
This is a extreme position however. Most people will not deny that your house exists even though you do not witness it. Most importantly in muslim faith a belief in the unseen is necessary in order to perfect your tawhid.
As Celene Ibrahims states in Islam and monotheism “tawhid” is an activity not merely a philosophical position or a theological tenet. The difference between the latter two might be difficult to distinguish to the untrained philosopher.
To get back to the theme of patience, scripture from God states:
- Wal ‘asr, inna insana la fee khusr, illal lazeena amanoo wa amilus salihaati wa tawassaw bilHaqqi wa tawasaw bis-sabr.
“By ‘asr, indeed man is in loss, except those who surround themselves with the righteous”
This last translation is a bit liberal but more meaningful than a direct translation in my opinion.
To return to the essay question, it specifically asks do humans need the realm of the unseen? Before I merely argued an advantage of belief in the unseen but I did not answer the essay question to its utmost capacity.
I would like to present the following example from the lion king. The tribe imprints upon Simba the belief that after death deceased ones are still present in the sky, they are among the stars.
This could be interpreted as an anthropomorphic belief. If it is believed that the deceased go back to the Creator then stating that the passed are present in the sky brings God down to earth. But what if the deceased do not go back to the Creator?
If passed ones do not go back to the creator then the Belief that they are in the skies does not necessitate the immanence of He.
Let’s consider the phrase “passed ones” now. In colloquial language “to pass” occurs in language that recalls the past. For example:
- He passed me on the train
It can also be used in present tense. What we should observe is that “passing” in the context typically does not refer to the realm of the unseen. So there are multiple meanings to the phrase “to pass.”
This phenomenon is not unique to “passing,” although it is a pointed one.
“Passing” does seem like a proper way to describe the sudden change.
I do not want to delve too deep into human motivation but it seems that the “good soul” does indeed “pass” rather than vanish into nothingness. If there is a realm of the unseen then passing makes perfect sense.
Let’s consider how the Qur’an treats the soul. Muslims console each other with:
- “And to Him is the return.”
Which is from the Qur’an. It refers to how the soul returns back to its creator. It can raise the following question: if the soul returns to the Merciful how do we reconcile this with his divine simplicity?
Plato argued for a soul that does indeed return. Or rather that the soul chooses. This shows that the supernatural is a concept that is deeply embedded into the human psyche.
The fact that the concept is embedded into the human psyche is not an argumentative proof for the necessity of the realm of the unseen. To rephrase the enduring presence of the idea of an enduring self can be separated from the idea of accountability.
Outside of the realm of religion the realm of the unseen can also refer to creativity. Hyperrealities are also not seen. Then the question “what is the realm of the unseen?” seems preliminary to “do humans need the realm of the unseen?”
The question “what is the realm of the unseen?” seems impossible to answer. If the realm of the unseen cannot be witnessed how could any knowledge transfer from it to the realm of return?
The existence of knowledge about the realm of the unseen would indicate the necessity of the existence of the realm of the unseen. This does not answer the question whether humans need the realm of the unseen however.
p1. Knowledge about x → x exists
p2. Humans need x
In the style of Avicennan reasoning, p1. indicates x exists, since if it is possible to discuss the existence of x, there needs to be some sort of existence of x.
So p1. would then be a tautology.
Consider p2. P2 only makes sense if x exists. Thus hypothetically the realm of the unseen exists. However p2. could have been “humans do not need x.” Also for this modified premise a necessary condition is that x exists, since “humans do not need x” is meaningless if x does not exist.
Let’s make the question slightly more sensible. What if we rephrase “do humans need the realm of the unseen?” to “do humans need a soul?”
Following Aristotles’ psychology, do humans need a appetitive aspect, a rational aspect and a vegatitive aspect? Yes almost certainly. So this would answer “do humans need a soul?” with “yes.”
Now then we can answer “do humans need the realm of the unseen” in a sophist manner with “yes insofar the soul coincides with the unseen.”
This answer then merely shows one reality which would answer the question “do humans need the realm of the unseen” affirmatively.