The problem of suffering can be a difficult topic to grapple with, particularly when one directly witnesses significant pain and hardship in the world. For this reason, it is important to temporarily set aside emotions and approach the issue with careful and logical reflection. In this article, I aim to present seven simple points that may help us understand this concept better.
God is beyond our understanding
The understanding that God and His actions are beyond human comprehension is a fundamental principle in religion as a whole. As the Promised Messiah (as) repeatedly stated in his writings:
عدمِ علم سے عدمِ شے لازم نہیں آتا
“Lack of knowledge regarding something does not necessitate its non-existence.”
The same principle applies to God’s wisdom and reasoning, i.e. “I cannot see a reason” does not mean that “there is no reason.” Human beings often assume that if they cannot immediately perceive wisdom behind an event, then no wisdom exists. However, such an assumption reflects the limitations of human understanding rather than the absence of purpose.
This point is important because we must first establish the framework within which this discussion is taking place. Are we addressing the issue purely within the limits of human logic or are we considering it beyond human logic altogether? Without clarifying this distinction, many arguments become unclear or even meaningless.
For example, if one presents logical dilemmas involved in creating a world entirely without suffering or highlights certain benefits that arise from suffering, the response could simply be: “God is All-Powerful and could create a world without suffering while still preserving those benefits.” Such a response effectively moves the discussion beyond the boundaries of human reasoning altogether.
Therefore, the arguments presented in this article will primarily operate within the framework of human logic and understanding. However, if one chooses to move beyond that framework and appeal to the unlimited nature of God’s power and wisdom, then the answer has already been established in this very point: God’s knowledge and reasoning transcend human comprehension.
God will recompense humans for what they have suffered
Furthermore, if we are to discuss God according to the Islamic conception of Him, including attributes like Merciful and Just, then intellectual consistency requires that we also take seriously the other theological principles connected to that understanding, rather than selectively accepting only those attributes that are relevant to the objection.
As Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (rh) describes when comparing the worldview of an atheist and a believer:
“If the atheist’s scepticism is correct, then death seems to be the only solution for the drawn out misery of the innocent sufferers. If the believer’s scenario of creation is right, then death again acquires the role of a redeemer, but in a completely different way. For them, death acts only as a gateway to the life after death, which will usher the innocent sufferers into an era of unlimited reward.” (Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth, p. 189)
In Islamic theology, God will recompense humans for what they have suffered, so much so that it is mentioned in a hadith that the Holy Prophet (sa) said: “No calamity befalls a Muslim but that Allah expiates some of his sins because of it, even though it were the prick he receives from a thorn.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Marza, Hadith 5640)
About children who pass away at a young age, the Holy Prophet (sa) said that they will be in Paradise and Hazrat Abraham (as) will take care of them. (Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Musnad al-Mukthirina Mina as-Sahabah, Musnad Abi Hurairah, 2001, Vol. 14, p. 71, Hadith 8324)
Even the parents of such children would be forgiven on account of their suffering. The Holy Prophet (sa) said: “Any Muslim whose three children died before the age of puberty will be granted Paradise by Allah because of His mercy to them.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-janaiz, Hadith 1381)
Many other ahadith illustrate the mercy of God, extending even to those who have committed major sins.
‘No suffering’ would require absolute equality and no diversity
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IV (rh) has beautifully explained this concept. He states:
“To resolve the question of suffering, there is another valid question to be raised against the Creator. If one child is born with pinhole eyes and a large ugly nose and other disproportionate features, will he not suffer all his life comparing his disadvantages with the advantages of other more fortunate fellow human beings? Inequality of health and looks will continue to irritate most individuals and will even agonise some at finding themselves to be at a disadvantage in comparison to others. Does it not warrant in the name of absolute justice and fair play that God should create every human exactly alike in health and looks? Widen the area of comparison by bringing into play the faculties of head and heart and disposition and the contrast between those who have advantages and those who have disadvantages will become even more pronounced. In the absence of extreme cases even the mild cases will appear offensive to the sense of justice. One has to begin somewhere to create variety and diversity to break the monotony. Wherever there is variety and diversity, comparative suffering and happiness are bound to be generated.” (Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth, pp. 187-188)
Not only does Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (rh) explain why suffering is inevitable within the framework of human logic, but he also highlights that suffering is fundamentally relative. What appears as extreme suffering to us is only extreme in comparison to other observed cases of suffering. If all forms of inequality were removed, then the next level of difference would itself become the source of comparison and what was previously considered acceptable would begin to appear problematic. This process would continue until all diversity is removed altogether.
Suffering arises from free will
This is a straightforward and simple argument. A person choosing to commit violence causes harm to others. Someone lying or cheating leads to broken trust and emotional pain. Driving recklessly can cause serious accidents. Making harmful lifestyle choices, such as substance abuse, can lead to health problems. Countries choosing war over peace create widespread suffering.
Free will makes people choose wrong actions in life, and as a result they either suffer themselves or cause suffering to others. Without free will, humans would not have moral responsibility and would be like a creation that is fixed in its actions, such as angels. On the other hand, if humans had free will but all the components that lead to suffering were removed, human life would become unrealistic and heavily restricted, meaning free will would still not truly exist in that case.
A stable world requires consistent natural laws
“Then what about natural disasters?” is a common follow-up question after the aforementioned point. While human actions explain moral suffering, they do not directly address natural disasters. However, it is important to understand that natural disasters are not “extra add-ons” to nature; they are side effects of the same systems that make life possible.
For example, gravity allows us to stand and walk on Earth and is essential for the structure of the universe. Yet it is the same gravity that can cause a child to fall from a height or a poorly designed building to collapse. The same principle applies to earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters. If we apply this reasoning consistently, we see that the same natural laws that sustain life can also, in certain conditions, produce harm.
If suffering were prevented every time it was about to occur, then natural laws would no longer be consistent or reliable.
Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (ra), in his book Our God, explains this concept by distinguishing between two types of laws: the law of Shariah and the law of nature. The law of nature operates through cause and effect and remains consistent regardless of moral status. He writes:
“Consider, for example, if a roof collapsed on two people, one pious and the other a sinner: in accordance with the law of nature, both will die or both will survive, depending on the way the roof fell. It would not [simply] be the case that the pious one is saved and the evil one dies. Similarly, if a pious and God-fearing person, who does not know how to swim, jumps into deep water, he will not be saved from drowning merely because he is pious. His piety relates to the law of Shariah and water is under the law of nature. The law of nature normally is not influenced by the law of Shariah. In short, as a general rule, the law of Shariah only determines the recompense of a good or bad deed within Shariah and has no bearing on the recompense determined by the law of nature, and vice versa.” (Our God, p. 185)
Suffering has certain benefits and a meaningful role to play
The way our world functions is deeply connected to suffering. Suffering is not merely pointless pain; it plays an important role in human experience, growth, and even the development of life itself.
a. Without suffering, happiness would also lose meaning
Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (rh) states: “Suffering could only be considered objectionable if it were created as an independent entity with no meaningful role to play in the scheme of things. But without the taste of suffering or an awareness of what it means, the feeling of relief and comfort would also vanish. Without an encounter with pain and misery, most certainly, joy and happiness would lose all meaning” (Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth, p. 182)
Human beings understand comfort because they experience hardship and appreciate happiness because they know sadness. If suffering were completely removed, many positive experiences would also lose their meaning and value.
b. Suffering has helped mankind evolve and progress
Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (ra) states: “We must go back all the way in the history of life; all the way to the very beginning and start to build the ladder of evolution anew, rung by rung. But try as we may, we are bound to get stuck at the very first step, the starting point of life. We would not be able to take a single step forward because an equal distribution of happiness and total absence of suffering would entirely eliminate the impetus for evolution. There would be no struggle for existence, no natural selection, no survival of the fittest. Not a single progressive step would be taken by the first, most rudimentary forms of life” (Ibid., p. 183)
Struggle, difficulty and hardship have played a major role in human development and progress. Much of human advancement, whether physical, intellectual or moral, comes through facing challenges and overcoming suffering.
c. Many virtues cannot exist without suffering
Good is not fully evident without the existence of evil and suffering. Many of the highest human virtues only become meaningful in the presence of hardship and difficulty.
For example:
- Courage and bravery cannot exist without danger.
- Patience cannot exist without hardship.
- Compassion cannot exist without suffering.
- Perseverance cannot exist without struggle.
- Forgiveness cannot exist without wrongdoing.
- Sacrifice cannot exist without pain or loss.
Love, morality, courage and virtue only become meaningful when people are free to reject them. Preventing all suffering may therefore also eliminate many of the greater goods and virtues that arise because of it.
This is similar to the response given by God Almighty to the angels when they asked: “Wilt Thou place therein such as will cause disorder in it, and shed blood? – and we glorify Thee with Thy praise and extol Thy holiness.” (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.31)
In response, God Almighty demonstrated to the angels the higher potential and virtues of human beings through the prophets and righteous people, showing that humanity, despite its capacity for evil and suffering, also possesses the ability to attain extraordinary moral and spiritual heights.
We lack the vocabulary to describe divine realities
Making a full circle back to the first point, it is important to remember that this objection does not actually disprove the existence of God. Rather, it challenges the idea of a perfectly good God and questions whether, if God exists, He can truly be understood as “perfectly good” in the way human beings define goodness. However, within Islamic theology, this framing itself is problematic.
Muslims believe not only that God is fundamentally beyond human comprehension, but also that even the attributes we ascribe to Him do not fully capture His true reality. Human language is limited, and we therefore lack the precise vocabulary to fully describe the nature of the Divine.
For example, when we say that God becomes angry, this does not resemble human anger. We use terms such as “wrath” only because they are the closest approximations available in human language. As the Promised Messiah (as) explains:
“The wrath of God does not mean that He becomes angry by bringing about an undesirable change in His condition. When a person is angry, he falls into distress and feels a sort of pain and loses his happiness, but God is always happy and suffers no distress. His wrath means that as He is Holy, He does not desire that His servants should adopt ways of impurity and demands that impurity should be swept away.” (The Essence of Islam, Vol. 2, p. 452)
From this perspective, the debate about whether God is “good” in the human sense becomes limited, because divine goodness cannot be fully equated with human moral categories and emotions.
Another important point to remember is that Islam already contains concepts such as hell and divine punishment. Therefore, if the existence of suffering is considered incompatible with the idea of God, then the challenge would also extend to theological doctrines that believers already accept as part of divine justice and wisdom. This means that the understanding of God and His attributes must remain consistent with the wider religious framework and with the other attributes already ascribed to Him.
This brings us back to the original point: God is beyond complete human comprehension and even the words and concepts that form the basis of this objection do not fully encompass the true nature of God. In that sense, the objection itself becomes limited by human language and understanding. Nevertheless, if the objection is still raised, then the only way to approach it is through the framework of human logic and reasoning, some responses to which have been presented in this article.