The Philosophical Induction Of Antagonism

Source: The Learning of the Glorious Qur’an, by Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi page 66.

This antagonistic induction had been chosen by the scholars with philosophical inclinations, because there is in the philosophical writings a proof of at-Tawhid called: The Proof of Antagonism.
Those with philosophical taste had applied this proof to the said ayah, and, in order to shed light on its strict logical form, they offered premises, each of which is considered to be a philosophical principle, the results of those premises are as below:
a. The "apparel" of existence, with respect to every "possible" being, must be bestowed by the "Necessary Being", and it is only the Necessary Being who is Self-Sufficient and' cannot be imagined to be in need.
b. The "caused" is in need of the cause, both in its existence and creation, and its existence is its very creation, as it in nothing but a connection and affinity to the "cause'.
c. Affiliating a single "caused" to two "causes" is impossible, like preferring without justification. From these premises we reach to the conclusion that in supposing that there are two or more gods, the existence of a being is to be attributed to them both. But, as the existence of a being is its very creation and affinity to its cause, and if it is affiliated to one of them, there we will have a preference without justification, which is impossible. If it is affiliated to many causes, then there must be as many "caused" as there are "causes", in which case the universe will be different and there will be chaos. For a detailed explanation, please refer to "The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism", Vol.5, ch. on at-Tawhid, footnotes by the martyr Professor Murtada Mutahhari, [in Persian].] The conclusion obtained from the Antagonistic Proof is, briefly: Two causes cannot independently be effective in the creation of a single "caused". If two causes take part in that, each one can have created a part of the "caused". Thus, such a "caused" must be composed of two parts, one part created by one of the two causes, and the other part by the other.
Finally, on the basis of the said premises, it can be concluded that there cannot be two gods in the world, as it is impossible to run the world by two deities both of whom are "Necessary Beings". A Necessary Being must, from every respect, be a necessary being - a necessary being in essence and a necessary being in all aspects.
In a term, there is, according to this proof, a false consequence in the said argument about the well-known example: "If the sun has risen then it is daytime", or sometimes we say: "The sun has not risen, then it is not daytime", or "It is not daytime, then the sun has not risen".
Concerning the second part, it is said that it is consequently false, i.e. the case is consisting of two parts, the first called the premise, and the second called the consequent. Thus: "If the sun has risen " is the promise, and "then it is daytime" is the consequent. If the consequent was false, the premise would be false, too, that is, if "it is not daytime", then it will be known that "the sun has not risen".
In this argument the consequent - the disorder of the world - is false, it is a lie, since the world is not in disorder. The falsity of the consequent means the falsity of the premise, that is, the supposition of multiplicity of gods is false, too.
In the said noble ayah the false consequent is not the non-existence of the world, but the false consequent is the disorderliness of the world. It says: "Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have been in a state of disorder", but you see that the world is not in a state of disorder.
It does not say: "Had there been many gods, the world could not have existed." The sate of disorder befalls something existent. If it is said in respect of a non-existing thing, it will be a falsity. This is why the Qur'an says: "If the world had had many gods it would have been corrupt". It does not say: ...it would not come to existence, whereas the relevant induction of antagonism mentioned by the philosophers denotes the disorderliness of the world.
Using this proof of antagonism is criticized on the grounds that what is applicable to this ayah is other than this proof established by the philosophers. The critics assert that this proof does not well conform to the appearance of the ayah. The import of the proof is: "Had there been many gods, the world would not have been created," while the import of the ayah is: "Had there been many gods, the world would have been in a state of disorder." That is, the existing world would have been in disorder.
These two cases are not quite the same the conclusion of this statement, though a serene and in itself a philosophic proof, is not completely applicable to the ayah. I myself do not approve of it in respect of this ayah.