The Second Rule: “One that lacks something cannot offer it.”

The issue of proving the existence of Allah is not the key issue in the Holy Qur’an, for those who overtly deny the existence of Allah recognize His Existence covertly because Allah (SWT) had secured their pledge and covenant before He brought them down to the earth and they testified that He is their Lord. Allah (SWT) says: “When your Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and making them testify concerning themselves, (He said): ‘Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?’ They said: ‘Yes! We do testify!’ (This), lest you should say on the Day of Judgment: ‘Of this we were unaware.’” (VII: 172)

But when they disregard their minds and behave arrogantly they deny their Lord (SWT) without presenting even a single proof.  So the first and foremost issue in the Holy Qur’an is that of proving the Oneness of Allah (SWT)  (Oneness of uluhiyyah and that of rububiyyah) and ascribing no partner to him. The Holy Qur’an highlights this point through various means and several methods that can be placed under the rule “One that lacks something cannot offer it” which means that if somebody cannot do a certain thing, the performance of that thing cannot be ascribed to him. All reasonable people know that a person who has no money cannot be asked by others to give them money; an ignorant person is not expected to offer knowledge because one that lacks something cannot offer it. An inanimate idol does not have wisdom, power, knowledge, etc. It cannot create something that reflects such wisdom, precision and perfection, for an idol, whether a stone, a tree, nature or anything else, does not have such characteristics. Not only this, but even a human, who is unable to protect himself against mischief, cannot credibly protect others against mischief or provide them with benefits. To think otherwise means to ridicule human reason.

Can a doer be one who has no power to do anything? Suppose we saw a killed person beside a tree, could we accuse that intact living tree of killing him? Would the police come to arrest that tree for killing him?

Can we say that the classroom is the maker of chairs and tables because they are inside in? The answer is obvious to every reasonable person: the tree is not the killer himself and the classroom is not the manufacturer.” Again we say that a number of verses have discussed this matter in various ways and several methods, such as: