Why do we not say that the Big Bang came before everything else?
Question

                i know an atheist that asked me if the universe was created by a god then who created him, or if Your god was a there at first then i can say that the big bang was there at first.
Praise be to Allah.
    If you say that 
    the Big Bang came before everything else, this means that you have not 
    studied the theory of the Big Bang itself, and you are contradicting its 
    meaning and basic idea, because this theory affirms that, if it is proven 
    that the universe is constantly expanding, that must mean that in the past 
    it was close together, and this being close together means that 
    gravitational force and compactness between its parts was so great that 
    there was no space between them, (near the beginning) the pressure was so 
    intense that all the matter that forms the universe was the size of an atom, 
    then (further back in time, to the point of the beginning) the size was 
    infinitely small and was nothing. This implies that at that point there was 
    no time or space, because matter itself did not exist. 

    Therefore when 
    this universe began – when its age was less than a billionth part of a 
    second – which was approximately fifteen billion years ago, as the 
    proponents of this theory say – the size of its matter was very close to 
    zero. Then this pressurised matter exploded and scattered its particles in 
    the form of rays, then it began to cool down, and our universe was gradually 
    formed from it. Hence this theory is called the Big Bang. … This is the view 
    of Stephen Hawking, whom some people called the Newton of the modern era, 
    when he said: “The greatest misunderstanding of the Big Bang is to say that 
    it started with a mass of matter somewhere in outer space. Matter is not the 
    only thing that was created during the Big Bang; rather time and space were 
    also created. Therefore in the same sense that we say place has a beginning, 
    we also say that time has a beginning.” [The Universe, Bozlo, p. 46] 

    He also says: 
    “This means that the very beginning of the universe was chosen with great 
    care, if the theory of the hot Big Bang was correct from the beginning of 
    time. It is very difficult to explain why the universe began in this 
    particular way, unless we say concerning that that there was indeed a 
    Creator who wanted to create beings like ourselves” [A Brief History of 
    Time, Hawking, p. 127]. See: al-Feeziya’ wa Wujood al-Khaaliq (p. 
    87-96). 

    This question 
    is obviously flawed, because the Big Bang cannot – rationally – have come 
    before everything, unless you believe that this Big Bang was the Necessary 
    Existent, that has all attributes of perfection, but that description refers 
    to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, if this is what you mean, then we 
    accept from you this claim that the Big Bang came before everything, and we 
    will agree with you that the universe was created by a Creator Who is 
    eternal. 

    But when the 
    question demands that we regard as equal the Creator Who is the Necessary 
    Existent Who is possessed of all attributes of perfection and the Big Bang 
    which is an incident that came into being after not having existed at all, 
    then the argument is flawed on two counts: 

    1.
    
    Because it describes the Big Bang as something that had no beginning, but at 
    the same time it is regarded as an incident that came into being after not 
    having existed at all, and this is self-contradictory, because that which 
    existed from eternity (and had no beginning) cannot be an incident

    2.
    
    Because it describes the Big Bang as being eternal (having no beginning), 
    and does not pay attention to the prerequisites of a thing being eternal, 
    the most important of which is that it must necessarily exist and possess 
    the attributes of perfection, and that refers to Allah, may He be glorified 
    and exalted. Anyone who describes the universe as having existed from 
    eternity falls into this contradiction. What he should have done is refer 
    (the matter of creation) to something other than this created universe, and 
    that is Allah, the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted.

    As for the 
    Muslim, he does not fall into this contradiction, because he will tell you 
    that the Creator existed from eternity and He was and there was nothing 
    before Him, because He is the Necessary Existent, and with Him the chain of 
    all created beings ends. When the Muslim describes Him as being before all 
    things, that is because He cannot be compared with created beings, 
    possibilities or incidents; rather He is greater than that. As for the 
    atheist who affirmed that this universe came into being after not having 
    existed, he is trying to explain it by referring to the Big Bang, which in 
    itself is of the same nature as the universe, with regard to it coming under 
    the heading of possibilities or incidents, then he ascribed to it the 
    attribute of existing from eternity, but this is not possible at all. 

    We believe that 
    it is easy for the human mind to believe in the idea that the universe is 
    created, whereas it is difficult for it to believe in a universe that 
    existed from eternity and had no beginning, when he sees at the same time 
    all the signs that show that it is not eternal as it is clearly and 
    obviously subject to constant alterations and changes. 

    As for the 
    concept of the Creator existing from eternity, that is something easy for 
    man to believe, because of a simple and straightforward reason, which is 
    that the Creator is not of the same nature as the created being, which means 
    rejecting all the rules of comparison and analogy that humans use and try to 
    apply to the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted. In that case the 
    explanation (that there is a Creator Who existed from eternity) makes 
    perfect sense. Although the Creator is unseen, the believer believes in Him 
    because He the Necessary Existent who is the Knower of the unseen world. 

    As for the one 
    who believes that the universe is an incident or created thing that existed 
    before everything, he believes in something that is impossible from a 
    rational point of view. Undoubtedly believing in the Creator is much easier 
    than believing in a created thing that existed from eternity. 

    In other words, 
    we may ask this atheist, is the Big Bang a possibility or a necessity? 

    If he says that 
    it is a possibility, then that which is possible could not have existed from 
    eternity. 

    If he says that 
    it is a necessity, then he has affirmed the existence of that which 
    necessarily exists from eternity and has no creator. In that case he has 
    affirmed the idea that there is a divine being. 

    The matter is 
    as simple as that. 

    Here we will 
    give some simple examples for that. 

    If you see some 
    important decision, that could change the course of the company, being made 
    in some large company, and then people differed concerning the source of 
    this decision, there are two possibilities: 

    1.
    
    either a group of employees, all of whom held positions at the same level, 
    and none of them has more authority than another, and every time one is 
    asked to make a decision he defers it to his colleague because he has no 
    authority to make a decision, so the matter kept going in this sequence 
    until the decision was made as a result of this sequence;

    2.
    or an 
    employee of a higher rank, who has absolute authority and has no colleague 
    at an equal position in the company, so that the matter could be passed 
    between him and that person, took this audacious decision, so that it was 
    done after not having being done,

    then which 
    possibility is more reasonable and which do you feel more at ease with? 

    Undoubtedly it 
    is the second possibility, even though you may not know about this 
    highest-ranking employee who is the one who made the decision – how he was 
    appointed and who gave him this authority – but you find this to be 
    something acceptable, because of the difference in rank and position between 
    this employee and the other, ordinary employees. That was sufficient for you 
    as an explanation of how major decisions are made in this company. 

    However, if you 
    continue in the sequence (mentioned in the first scenario) and say that this 
    employee ordered that employee, ad infinitum in the realm of lower level 
    employees, that will not be convincing at all as an explanation of the 
    matter, unless you explain the way the decision was made by referring it to 
    one who is in a leading position, who does not need to be appointed by 
    anyone else or wait for the decision of anyone else. 

    Allah, may He 
    be glorified and exalted, is the One Who is the first and only 
    decision-maker with regard to the creation of this universe and bringing it 
    into existence; He is the One Who does not ask for permission from anyone 
    else. “He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be 
    questioned” [al-Anbiya’ 
    21:23]. 
    For He is the Creator, Who is different from created beings. Then (after 
    concluding that there is a Creator) you have to attribute to this Creator, 
    may He be glorified and exalted, that which is hidden from you of absolute 
    perfect attributes, such as existence from eternity, because you are 
    speaking about a very significant matter that has nothing to do with 
    anything ordinary; rather it has to do with something beyond human 
    capability and beyond that with which humans are familiar, namely the 
    creation of this universe from nothing. So it is more appropriate that you 
    should refer (the creation of the universe) to a Creator Who is the 
    Necessary Existent, First and Last, rather than referring it to any created 
    being and attributing to it existence from eternity to eternity. In other 
    words, we say that referring the issue of creation to a Creator who is 
    eternal and has no beginning is the inevitable conclusion of the process of 
    thinking about the cause of this universe and how it came about, because 
    alternative explanations, which say that the universe is eternal (and had no 
    beginning) or that it created itself, or that things came into existence by 
    themselves after having been nothing, are clearly false, as is obvious to 
    anyone who examines these ideas. Therefore he has no choice, as he will be 
    compelled by his rational thinking, and also by his common sense, to believe 
    in another cause, far beyond that with which we are familiar and that we 
    know, that cannot have a beginning, or it cannot be that anyone created Him, 
    and that is Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. 

    If, after this 
    conclusion, you again ask: then who created Allah? This means that you did 
    not understand the different stages of examining and thinking mentioned 
    above, and you have not understood how those who believe in Allah, may He be 
    glorified and exalted, reached that conclusion; you want to take the debate 
    back to square one. 

    Dr Ja‘far 
    Shaykh Idrees (may Allah preserve him) said – answering the specious 
    argument of Hume which says that if the universe needed a cause, then God 
    also needs a cause: 

    I never thought 
    that a thinker – whether he was a believer or a nonbeliever – could 
    seriously ask this question: who created God? When he knows what this word 
    (God) signifies. 

    But it seems 
    that some prominent Western physicists take this question seriously and in 
    fact regard it as one of the main flaws in the view that there is a Creator. 
    We see Hawking also saying about God: who created Him? 

    The answer to 
    this question, which these philosophers, scientists and many others think is 
    a dilemma, is very easy: 

    If the opponent 
    (in an argument) accepts that the universe, which is an incident or created 
    thing, must have a cause that is not an incident, then if he accepts that 
    this cause is not an incident – i.e. it is eternal – which is called God, 
    then his question about the Creator or cause of God has no meaning at all, 
    for it is a question on the part of one who does not understand what he is 
    saying; it is a question that contains a very weird contradiction, because 
    the cause by necessity precedes the effect, and that which is eternal, by 
    necessity is not preceded by anything. So how can it have a cause? 

    For someone to 
    say “Who created God?” is the equivalent of saying: “What preceded the thing 
    before which there was nothing?” Or “what comes after the thing after which 
    there is nothing?” Does such a question even make sense? If you tell a man 
    that So-and-so came first in a race, is it acceptable for him to say: Fine, 
    but who came before him? Similarly in this case proof is established that 
    God is the First and there is nothing before Him, so how can it be said 
    “what was the cause of Him?” or “who created Him?”? 

    However, Davies 
    and Pareau, and others who followed them in imitating Hume, give the 
    impression that those who base their evidence for the existence of the 
    Creator on the existence of the universe have decided on the basis of pure 
    whims and desires that the universe requires a cause to bring it into 
    existence. Then they foolishly decided that God does not need this cause, 
    hence they claimed that we cannot stop at the universe (so there must be 
    something beyond it). But when they got to God, they stopped with Him and 
    did not go any further. There is no difference – according to their claim – 
    between stopping here or stopping there. 

    From both of 
    them, and from others, this is a sign of confusion because they overlooked 
    the huge difference between the nature of the universe, which is an incident 
    or created thing, and the nature of the Creator, Who is eternal.

    End quote from
    al-Feeziya’ wa Wujood al-Khaaliq (120-124). 

    We will quote 
    here a fictional debate that was written by one of those who specialise in 
    debating with atheists, which will highlight the reality of this confusion 
    into which the questioner has fallen. 

    The atheist 
    said: Your stating that Allah is the Creator of all things is a statement 
    that could be undermined by asking: So who is it that created Allah? 

    The Muslim 
    said: No, it does not undermine it, because we say that if there is any 
    being that has the attribute of creation (being able to create), yet at the 
    same time there is someone who created him, then he is like his creation: he 
    is also a created being. And any maker who could be described as such yet at 
    the same time there is someone who made him, is also made, like the things 
    that he makes.

    Does this 
    statement imply that it is not possible to have a supreme Creator outside of 
    this circle, who has no creator or maker, and no one is equal to Him, and He 
    is the origin and initiator of all things? 

    Not at all; 
    rather this Creator is the Necessary Existant, who must exist on a rational 
    basis, because he is the end of that chain, which reason cannot accept but 
    that it must end with Him. We are talking about the Creator who is not a 
    created being, who is completely outside this system, so He is not subject 
    to the rules of the system, and cannot be compared to any (hypothetical) 
    “creator/created being”, because He is the one who ordained the rules in 
    this universe, and initiated (those rules) on the basis of His power and 
    creation in the first place. 

    So the created 
    thing cannot create itself; rather it must have been created by something 
    else and this chain must inevitably, according to rational thinking, end 
    with the first initiator, the first creator, who was not created by anything 
    and is not part of that chain and does not form one link in it at all. 
    Rather he is the one who created the entire chain and everything in it; so 
    He is not part of it and is not limited by its limits or subject to its law. 
    Such is Allah, the All-Knowing Creator. 

    The atheist 
    said: If He is not subject to its laws, and we cannot perceive Him with our 
    senses, then how can we be expected to imagine Him in our minds and believe 
    in Him in our hearts? 

    The Muslim 
    said: Reason is able to perceive the concept, but not the nature or reality, 
    and the difference between them is an essential difference for any rational 
    person. 

    I understand on 
    the basis of reason the possibility of the existence of billions upon 
    billions of stars in the galaxies of this vast universe, but can my reason 
    understand how that is or imagine it? Could I imagine the ratio of my size 
    to the size of the earth alone, let alone that which is far bigger of the 
    stars and planets around us? Not at all! I know of the existence of the soul 
    in bodies which, if it is removed the living man dies, and my reason 
    confirms the necessity of its existence and its essence as a concept and 
    idea, but could my reason imagine anything about its nature and essence, or 
    could I measure it or estimate it mathematically? Not at all! 

    This is the 
    difference between a concept that reason rejects and does not accept in the 
    first place, and a concept that reason does not reject, but it cannot 
    compare its description to anything that is conceivable or visible, with 
    regard to its nature and essence. So people’s minds would not be able to 
    imagine that concept, yet they affirm the soundness of the concept, and the 
    possibility – or necessity – of its existence. 

    So if you think 
    of the Christian belief in the Trinity, for example, you will see this 
    subtle difference, for they believe in something with regard to the divine 
    essence that is impossible, from a rational point of view, to exist as an 
    idea or concept.

     It is not 
    rationally possible for three to be one or one to be three. This is what 
    makes you atheists able to prove the utter falseness of their Trinity. 

    But when you 
    come to examine the belief of monotheist Muslims in their Lord, you will 
    have no reason to criticise their belief in the essence and attributes of 
    their Lord. You have no criticism except that you cannot comprehend this 
    Lord and you cannot compare Him to something that you do comprehend and 
    understand. It is as if you are concluding that it is impossible for Him to 
    exist according to rational thinking, as is the case with the Trinity! They 
    say that it is a “too easy” answer to the problem, as if the simplicity of 
    the monotheistic belief in the unseen is something for which they should be 
    condemned and is an indication that it is false. They say that there is no 
    existing being that cannot be subject to the laws of the universe. It is as 
    if you travelled beyond this universe and saw that there was nothing beyond 
    it, so nothing could exist except something that is like what you are 
    subject to in this universe. 

    The difference 
    between us and you is that we accept what is indicated by every breath in 
    our own bodies, and by everything, small or great, in this precise and 
    well-made universe around us, so we do not attribute its existence except to 
    a Creator Who is greater than it and outside of it, Whose essence and 
    attributes cannot be compared to anything in it. As for you, because of your 
    corrupt way of reasoning and understanding, you insisted on denying the 
    Creator completely and rejecting any possibility of His existence, and you 
    insisted on putting something created and insignificant in His place, such 
    as genes, for no other reason except that you would be able to comprehend 
    its essence. It is as if your minds – which if they were able to understand 
    the language of monkeys, you would have heard them criticising your minds 
    and way of thinking – will not accept anything except that of which it can 
    imagine the nature and essence by means of comparing it to something similar 
    or equal. 

    So tell me, O 
    atheist, don’t you believe that this universe has a limit at which it stops? 
    Is that not so? 

    The atheist 
    said: Yes indeed. 

    The Muslim 
    said: Great! Even though that of which they have calculated the diameter is 
    the visible universe, and not the entire universe, and they have even 
    suggested that it is still expanding. 

    But this is not 
    my concern. My question to you is: do you have anything in this world to 
    which you could compare the limit of the universe at which it ends? 

    In other words: 
    have you seen in this world that which will help you to understand how that 
    limit, within which is the matter of the universe, could be, and after it 
    there is something that you do not know and cannot imagine, and you cannot 
    but accept the fact that it exists there, whatever that thing may be? 

    The atheist 
    thought for a while, then said: No doubt beyond this universe there is empty 
    space and infinite nothingness. 

    The Muslim 
    said: Surely you are lying! Do you know why? 

    The atheist 
    said: Why? 

    The Muslim 
    said: Because the one who bases certain knowledge on the phrase “no doubt”, 
    basing his certainty on an assumption for which he has no rational or 
    physical evidence, is a liar. 

    Whatever the 
    case, what I mean is that there is something beyond this universe and 
    outside of it, and you cannot imagine the nature of it, no matter what it 
    is, even though you affirm, on a rational basis, that there is a possibility 
    that something exists (beyond the universe), and that the nature of that 
    thing, by necessity, is different from what is within the universe. 
    Otherwise it would not be possible to say – from a linguistic point of view 
    – that this is the boundary at which the universe ends. Is that not so? 

    The atheist did 
    not answer. 

    The Muslim 
    said: So why do you insist that the mere fact that you are unable to imagine 
    the essence of God – which we believe is sublime and above the heavens and 
    all that exists, and His attributes cannot be denied on the basis of reason 
    and cannot be compared to any of His creation – is evidence that He cannot 
    exist? 

    End quote from 
    Islamweb.net on the following link: 


    http://articles.islamweb.net/media/index.php?page=article&lang=A&id=198814

    Because of the 
    importance of your question, we will quote to you another debate with an 
    atheist: 

    Shaykh Muhammad 
    al-Ghazaali (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book Qadhaa’if al-Haqq 
    (p. 197-203): 

    I had a lengthy 
    discussion with an atheist in which I controlled myself and tried to be 
    patient, until he disclosed all the specious arguments that he had up his 
    sleeve, so that I could defeat with clear arguments and evidence what he 
    uttered of specious arguments. 

    He said: If 
    Allah created the universe, then who created Allah? 

    I said to him: 
    It is as if, by asking this question or raising this objection, you are 
    affirming that everything must have a Creator. 

    He said: Let us 
    avoid getting into a vicious circle; just answer my question. 

    I said to him: 
    There is no need for waffle. You think that this universe has no creator, 
    which means that He existed by Himself without any need for someone to bring 
    Him into existence, so why do you accept the view that this universe existed 
    by itself for eternity, yet you find it strange that religious people say 
    that the existence of God, Who created this universe, has no beginning? 

    It is the same 
    concept, so how come you believe yourself when you confirm this concept (of 
    existing from eternity, with regard to the universe), but you reject the 
    view of others when they affirm the same concept (with regard to God having 
    no beginning). If you think that to believe in a God Who has no creator is a 
    myth, then a universe that has no creator is also a myth, according to the 
    logic that you are following! 

    He said: We are 
    living in this universe and we can feel its existence, so we cannot deny 
    it! 

    I said to him: 
    Who asked you to deny the existence of the universe? 

    When we travel 
    in a car or ship or plane that is zooming along with us in a very terrifying 
    way, our question is not whether the car exists; rather our question is: is 
    it travelling by itself or does it have a driver or pilot who has 
    experience? 

    Therefore let 
    us go back to your first question, which is to be thrown back at you. Both 
    of us accept that there is a being that exists and there is no way to deny 
    it. You claim that it has no beginning as far as matter is concerned, and I 
    think that it has no beginning with regard to its creator. 

    If you want to 
    poke fun at a being that has no beginning, then poke fun at yourself first, 
    before you poke fun at religious people. 

    He said: Do you 
    mean that the rational assumption is the same for both groups? 

    I said: I am 
    going along with you for arguments sake, only to expose to you the flawed 
    and false arguments on which atheism is based. As for the rational 
    assumption, it is not the same for believers and disbelievers. 

    Imagine that 
    you and I are looking at a standing building. After thorough examination, I 
    can conclude that an engineer must have built it, but you think that some 
    lumber, metal, stone and paint took up the appropriate positions to prepare 
    this building for people to live in, all by themselves. The difference 
    between our views is like this: if I see a satellite orbiting in space, and 
    you tell me that it went into orbit by itself, without any supervision or 
    control, and I tell you that it was launched by rational people who are 
    controlling and supervising it, these rational assumptions are not the same. 
    In my case, my assumption is the ultimate truth that cannot be denied, 
    whereas your assumption is falsehood that is undoubtedly false. All the 
    atheists of the current era are very skilled in insulting us believers and 
    saying all manner of bad things about us, at the time when they describe 
    themselves as being smart, progressive and brilliant. We are living on an 
    earth that is comfortable and fit for living, beneath a star filled sky, and 
    we possess reason and intellect by means of which we can research and judge, 
    and with this reasoning and intellect we contemplate, reach conclusions, 
    discuss and believe. On the basis of this reason and intellect we refuse to 
    imitate blindly, just as we reject nonsensical ideas. If people want to make 
    fun of those whom they regard as backward, trapped in the past and rigid in 
    their thinking, they might as well also make fun of those who kill reason in 
    the name of reason, and stomp on the conclusions of science in the name of 
    science, for they – unfortunately – constitute the majority of atheists!

    … and so on.


    http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=218512

    And Allah knows 
    best.