The Problem of Evil is a common argument used by atheists to undermine the probability of the truth of theism. This argument possibly originates from the Greek philosopher Epicurus. David Hume summarizes Epicurus’ argument in the following way: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?” The “logical” argument is as follows:

P1: If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God exists, then evil does not.
P2: Evil exists in this world.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is weak for many reasons, before going into how the Persian polymath Algazel addressed this argument, I will show what the argument really means.

For the first part of the argument, one may ask: why does an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God allow people to produce evil? Before getting into this argument, it is crucial to understand that evil and good are both defined upon each other. The lack of evil is the possession of good and vice versa. It concludes that if God disallows evil, He disallows good as well. This raises the question: if everyone inherently did the “good” thing without the possibility of choosing otherwise, could they truly be considered morally good? The absence of a choice to do evil means that their actions, while positive, aren’t necessarily a reflection of moral goodness, as there was no alternative but to do good.

In order to do actual good, there must be the potential to not do good.

So, with this addressed, we see that the real question that The Problem with Evil begs is: “Why does God allow the dichotomy of good and evil to exist?” The false assumption of this argument is believing that God is only All-Good and All-Powerful. It is indeed true that God is all-Good and all-Powerful, but God has other attributes that people tend to ignore, such as being all-Just.

The First Issue: In the first situation, we have evil from people. God allows people to produce evil because it allows for free will. As mentioned previously, if all were compelled to do good without the possibility of not doing it, then that good was not truly of their will. This would mean that all people would be admitted into paradise for no reason. It has also been clearly established by God that the evil we produce will be dealt with swiftly, there is no contradiction in this.

وَٱتَّقُوا۟ يَوْمًۭا تُرْجَعُونَ فِيهِ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ ۖ ثُمَّ تُوَفَّىٰ كُلُّ نَفْسٍۢ مَّا كَسَبَتْ وَهُمْ لَا يُظْلَمُونَ ٢٨١

And guard yourselves against a day in which ye will be brought back to Allah. Then every soul will be paid in full that which it hath earned, and they will not be wronged. (2:281)
— M. Pickthall

The Second Issue: One may ask, why does God allow the potential for evil at all? This brings us to the second assumption that atheists make about God: “there is no greater reason to allow suffering to exist” this is false. In fact, the existience of suffering opens the doors to greater goods, also known as second-order goods. First-order good is simple pleasure, bodily happiness, etc. First-order evil is physical pain, sadness, stress, etc. Second order goods, however, are results of first-order evil. For example, benevolence, mercy, courage, generosity, etc. These virtues emerge from suffering; courage requires the initial evil of fear, generosity and patience are cultivated through poverty, and mercy is born from suffering. God allows these hardships to provide opportunities for us to alleviate them, promoting growth in ourselves and others.

Suffering is essential for these tests of character; without it, life would lack meaningful trials. Beyond teaching second-order virtues, suffering helps us grow, deepens our reliance on God, clarifies our purpose, and helps us detach from worldly concerns. Consider a story where the protagonist faces no obstacles or higher calling—it would hardly be compelling. Thus, the argument that God has no valid reason for allowing suffering is flawed; there are profound purposes behind it.

In truth, the atheists argument is the following:

P1: If an all-Good and all-Powerful God exists, then evil cannot exist.
P2: Evil exists in our world.
C: God is not all-Good and all-Powerful.

This is a sound argument, but God is not only these two attributes. They have disproved of a version of God which is not found in theistic scripture. To isolate God to merely two of his multiple attributes would be to limit God in a certain way, then undermine him.

---

What does Al Ghazali say? This excerpt is found from his The Ninty-Nine Beautiful Names of God. In the chapter on God as ar-Rahman and ar-Raheem (Ar-Rahman can be understood to refer to Allah as the origination/source of all mercy, whereas Ar-Raheem refers to its sustaining/infiniteness.)

“He leaves His servants to be tried with disasters and hardships while the world is overflowing with disease, calamities, and tribulations yet He is able to remove them all. The Merciful one certainly wants good for the one who receives mercy. Yet there is no evil in existence which does not contain some good within it, and were that evil to be eliminated, the good in it would be nullified and the final result would be an evil worse than the evil containing the good. The certain amputation of the hand is an evident evil yet within lies ample good; the health of the body. Amputation is intended for the sake of that good so health was sought for itself first, and amputation second; for the sake of the other and not for itself.

As in the saying of God, ‘My Mercy precedes My anger.’ He intended good for the good itself, yet intended evil not for itself but because there is some good within it. A small child’s mother may be tender towards him and keep him from undergoing cupping, while the wise father makes him do it by force. The intelligent understand that the father’s hurting him by cupping reflects the perfection of his mercy and love as well as the completeness of His compassion; whereas the mother was his enemy in the guise of a friend, since a little suffering, when it is the cause of great joy, is not evil but good.

If a particular evil occurs to you without your seeing any good in it, for saying that this evil has no good beneath it, in this regard you are perhaps like the ignorant person who saw cupping as nothing but evil, or like the ignorant person who sees punishment by death as an unmitigated evil, because he is considering the particular qualities of the individual executed, for whom it is indeed a sheer evil, while overlooking the common good gained for the entire population.

Never doubt that He is the most merciful of the merciful, or that ‘His Mercy takes precedence over His anger’, and never doubt that the one who intends evil for the sake of evil and not for the sake of good is undeserving of the name of mercy. Beneath all this lies a secret whose divulgence the revelation prohibits, so be content with prayer and do not expect that it be divulged.”