Science as Divine Signs Al-Sanusi’s framework

dr.nouman.io

·

·

Based on the article “Science as Divine Signs: Al-Sanu¯ s¯ı’s Framework of Legal (shar֒¯ı), Nomic (֒a¯ d¯ı), and Rational (֒aql¯ı) Judgements” by Shoaib Ahmed Malik.

Overall Objective: To gain an in-depth understanding of Imam al-Sanusi’s theological framework and its significant potential for shaping contemporary Muslim engagement with science.

Part 1: Introduction and Background

Based on the article “Science as Divine Signs: Al-Sanu¯ s¯ı’s Framework of Legal (shar֒¯ı), Nomic (֒a¯ d¯ı), and Rational (֒aql¯ı) Judgements” by Shoaib Ahmed Malik.

Overall Objective: To gain an in-depth understanding of Imam al-Sanusi’s theological framework and its significant potential for shaping contemporary Muslim engagement with science.

Setting the Stage – The Science-Theology Dialogue

  • The Enduring Question: The relationship between science and theology is a central and urgent area of inquiry in modern thought. In an era defined by rapid scientific advancement, profound questions arise about the metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological implications of scientific discoveries.
  • Key Inquiries:
    • How do diverse religious traditions approach and interact with scientific paradigms?
    • Can theological frameworks offer unique and valuable insights into the nature of scientific knowledge, its limits, and its broader meaning?
  • The Need for Diverse Perspectives: While these questions are widely discussed, much of the existing scholarship in the “Science and Religion” field has been heavily influenced by Christian philosophical and theological paradigms. This highlights a critical need to explore perspectives from other major world traditions, such as Islam, which offer alternative, rigorous frameworks for engaging these complex issues.
  • The Rise of “Islam and Science”: This field is rapidly evolving, tackling a wide array of topics where Islamic thought intersects with scientific findings. Examples include:
    • Quantum Mechanics
    • Evolutionary Biology (often a point of contention)
    • Psychology
    • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
    • Extraterrestrial Life
  • Methodological Debates within Islam and Science: A key point of discussion revolves around how to approach the relationship between Islamic theology and science:
    • Approach 1 (Tradition-Grounded): Engaging scientific ideas by drawing directly from the rich resources of the Islamic intellectual tradition. This involves either adhering closely to classical frameworks or adapting them thoughtfully for contemporary issues. This article aligns with this approach.
    • Approach 2 (Framework Innovation): Arguing that while tradition is foundational, new epistemological and methodological frameworks are needed to adequately address the unique challenges posed by modern science.

Introducing Imam Al-Sanusi – A Post-Classical Thinker

  • Who was Al-Sanusi?
    • Full name: Imam Abu¯ ֒Abd Alla¯ h Muh. ammad ibn Yu¯ suf al-Sanu¯ s¯ı.
    • Lived: Died in 1490 CE.
    • Origin: A prominent Maghrebi (North African, from Tlemcen in modern-day Algeria) theologian and jurist.
    • Affiliation: Belonged to the Ash’ari school of theology.
  • Significance in Intellectual History: Al-Sanusi is particularly important because he represents a mature and sophisticated stage of post-classical Kalam.

Understanding Kalam – Islamic Dialectical Theology

  • What is Kalam?
    • Literal meaning: “Speech” or “Discourse”.
    • Definition: A major intellectual discipline within Islamic civilization focused on using rational argumentation (dialectics) to articulate, clarify, and defend Islamic beliefs (aqidah).
    • Origins: Emerged in the early Islamic period, partly in response to internal debates and external challenges from other religious and philosophical traditions.
    • Influences: Developed in dialogue with the intellectual currents of Late Antiquity, including Christological debates in the Christian communities of Syria and Iraq, and later, significantly, Greek philosophy (especially Aristotelian and Neoplatonic thought, often mediated through Muslim philosophers).
    • Scope: Kalam is broader than simple “theology.” It distinctively integrates metaphysics, logic (mantiq), epistemology, and scriptural interpretation.
  • Kalam’s Evolution – The Post-Classical Synthesis:
    • Early Kalam engaged with Falsafa (Islamic philosophy inspired by Greek thought – figures like al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes).
    • A crucial development occurred in the post-classical period (roughly 12th century onwards).
    • Major Ash’ari figures like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1210) began systematically integrating the sophisticated philosophical tools and concepts of Avicenna (Ibn Sina) into the Kalam framework.
    • This led to a more rigorous and systematic approach within Kalam to address complex theological, metaphysical, and epistemological questions.
    • Al-Sanusi (15th century) stands firmly within this advanced stage, where the boundaries between Kalam and Falsafa became more porous, reflecting a deep engagement with philosophical methods to articulate theological positions.

Al-Sanusi’s Works and Pedagogical Approach

  • Prolific Author: Known for a series of highly structured theological texts designed for progressive learning.
  • Unique Feature: Al-Sanusi authored both the concise core texts (mutun, sing. matn) and their detailed commentaries (shuruh, sing. sharh), ensuring clarity and consistency in explanation.
  • Key Works in his Pedagogical Series:
  1. The Preliminaries of Theology (al-Muqaddimat): The foundational text for the framework discussed in this article.
  2. The Most Concise Theology (Sughra al-Sughra)
  3. The Concise Theology (al-‘Aqida al-Sughra): Famously known as Umm al-Barahin (“The Mother of Proofs”). This text became a cornerstone of traditional Islamic seminary education for centuries, generating numerous commentaries.
  4. The Intermediate Theology (al-‘Aqida al-Wusta)
  5. The Advanced Theology (al-‘Aqida al-Kubra)
  • Focus of the Article: The article primarily draws upon The Preliminaries (al-Muqaddimat) because it systematically lays out Al-Sanusi’s foundational tripartite classification of judgements (legal, nomic, rational).

Why Focus on Ash’arism? Caveats and Core Doctrines

  • Important Caveat: Diversity in Islamic Theology: It is crucial to understand that Islamic theology is not monolithic. There are several distinct schools with differing metaphysical assumptions, views on causality, divine action, and the roles of reason and revelation. Key examples include:
  • Athari (often emphasizing scripture and tradition)
  • Maturidi (another major Sunni school, often seen as closer to Ash’arism but with differences)
  • Mu’tazili (historically emphasized reason and divine justice, differing significantly on divine attributes and free will)
  • Falasifa (Muslim Peripatetic philosophers like Avicenna, with necessitarian metaphysics)
  • Shi’a traditions (Ithna ‘Ashari/Twelver, Zaydi, Isma’ili) with their own distinct theological frameworks.
  • These differences profoundly shape how each tradition might approach science.
  • Why This Article Focuses on Ash’arism:
    • Historical Prominence: Ash’arism became a dominant theological school within Sunni Islam.
    • Contemporary Relevance: There’s a growing body of recent scholarship employing Ash’ari principles to engage with modern scientific topics like quantum physics, evolution, divine action, and ethics. This suggests Ash’arism offers relevant conceptual tools.
  • The Three Interwoven Ash’ari Commitments (Essential for Understanding Al-Sanusi’s Framework):
  1. Radical Metaphysical Contingency: The belief that all of creation—everything other than God—is fundamentally possible (ja’iz). It does not exist by necessity but depends entirely on God’s continuous will and power for its existence and properties, moment by moment.
  2. Occasionalism: The doctrine that God is the sole, direct, and immediate cause of all events. Created things lack inherent causal powers. What we perceive as natural causes (e.g., fire burning cotton) are merely correlations or ‘customs’ (‘adat Allah) that God consistently enacts. God creates the burning on the occasion of the fire contacting the cotton.
  3. Divine Command Theory (DCT): The view that moral values (good/bad) and legal obligations (halal/haram) are determined exclusively by God’s commands, as revealed through scripture. Reason alone cannot determine morality; actions derive their moral status from divine decree.
  • Crucial Contrast: Ash’arism vs. Falsafa:
  • Ash’arism: Emphasizes God’s Will (Voluntarism), Contingency, and Direct Divine Action (Occasionalism). Allows for miracles as God acting outside His custom.
  • Falsafa (e.g., Avicenna): Operates within a Necessitarian framework, often rooted in Neoplatonic emanationism. God acts by necessity, not free will. Creation flows in an immutable hierarchy. Natural laws reflect this necessity. Miracles and radical contingency are problematic or reinterpreted.
  • Article’s Specific Goal: To present Al-Sanusi’s tripartite classification of judgements as a systematic Ash’ari meta-framework for engaging with science, offering conceptual clarity and methodological coherence grounded in this tradition.

Part 2: Al-Sanusi’s Tripartite Framework of Judgements (Ahkam)

The Foundation – Concept vs. Judgement

  • Starting Point: Before diving into the three types of judgements, Al-Sanusi establishes a crucial distinction in human cognition, drawing from established logical traditions (though applying it distinctively in his theological introduction).
  • Concept (Tasawwur):
    • Definition: The mental act of grasping the meaning or essence of a thing, without making any assertion about its existence, non-existence, or its relationship to anything else.
    • Function: It’s about understanding what something is. Concepts are the basic building blocks of thought.
    • Examples: Understanding the meaning of “cat” (a furry mammal, whiskers, etc.), “car” (a vehicle for transport), “justice,” “burning.”
    • Neutrality: Concepts themselves are neither true nor false. They simply represent an idea.
  • Judgement (Hukm or Tasdiq):
    • Definition: The mental act of affirming (ithbat) or negating (nafi) a relationship between two concepts (a subject and a predicate), or asserting the existence or non-existence of something corresponding to a concept.
    • Function: It moves beyond mere understanding to making a claim about reality or a relationship.
    • Examples:
      • Building on the concept “cat”: “My neighbour has a cat” (affirmation/ithbat) or “My neighbour does not have a cat” (negation/nafi).
      • Building on the concept “car”: “This car is red” (affirmation) or “This car is not red” (negation).
    • Truth Value: Judgements, unlike concepts, possess a truth value – they can be assessed as true or false.
  • The Link: Judgements build upon concepts. You must first grasp the concept of ‘cat’ and ‘neighbour’ before you can make a judgement about whether your neighbour possesses one.
  • Al-Sanusi’s Insight: Judgements aren’t made in a vacuum; they always operate within specific domains or according to particular sources of knowledge. This leads directly to his classification of judgements into three types: Legal, Nomic, and Rational.

Legal Judgement (Hukm Shar’i) – The Domain of Revelation

  • Source: Legal judgements derive their authority exclusively from Divine Revelation (al-Shar’), specifically the Qur’an and the Sunnah (Prophetic tradition).
  • Type of Divine Speech: Revelation contains different types of speech. Legal judgements primarily stem from performative speech (insha’), which enacts or establishes rulings (commands, prohibitions), rather than declarative speech (khabar), which simply describes reality and is truth-bearing (e.g., statements about God’s attributes or past events).
  • Underlying Principle: Ash’ari Divine Command Theory (DCT):
  • This is fundamental to understanding Hukm Shar’i in the Ash’ari context.
  • Core Tenet: Actions are not intrinsically good or bad in themselves. Their moral value (obligatory, forbidden, etc.) is determined solely by God’s command or prohibition as revealed in the Shar’.
  • Reason’s Limitation: Human reason, on its own, cannot discover or establish these moral/legal values. It can understand rational truths, but not divine obligations.
  • Two Main Categories of Legal Judgement:
  1. Defining Law (Hukm Taklifi): Addresses the direct moral and religious responsibilities assigned to a mukallaf (a legally responsible individual, typically defined as mature and sane).
  2. Declaratory Law (Hukm Wad’i): Addresses the contextual factors (causes, conditions, impediments) that determine when and how the defining laws apply.
  • Detailed Look at Defining Law (Hukm Taklifi):
  • Focus: Prescribes specific actions or omissions.
  • The Five Rulings (al-Ahkam al-Khamsah): These categorize actions based on divine command:
    • Obligatory (Wajib / Fard): An action commanded by God that must be performed. Compliance brings reward; neglect incurs punishment. Example: Performing the five daily prayers (Salah).
    • Prohibited (Haram / Mahzur): An action forbidden by God that must be avoided. Performing it incurs punishment; avoiding it (out of obedience) brings reward. Example: Consuming alcohol or pork.
    • Recommended (Mandub / Mustahabb / Sunnah): An action encouraged by God, but not mandatory. Performing it brings reward; neglecting it incurs no punishment. Example: Giving extra charity (sadaqah) beyond the obligatory Zakat, performing extra prayers.
    • Discouraged (Makruh): An action disliked by God, better to avoid, but not strictly forbidden. Performing it incurs no punishment, but avoiding it may bring reward. Example: Eating garlic before attending communal prayer (due to the smell potentially bothering others), delaying prayer unnecessarily within its time window.
    • Permissible (Mubah / Halal / Ja’iz): An action that is neutral in God’s sight. There is no command or prohibition related to it; performing or neglecting it brings neither reward nor punishment. Example: Eating permissible foods like apples or oranges, choosing a particular mode of transport.
  • Detailed Look at Declaratory Law (Hukm Wad’i):
  • Focus: Specifies the circumstances, conditions, and triggers related to the Defining Laws.
  • Meaning of Wad’i: Literally “placed” or “established.” This signifies how these laws, though divinely revealed, are often linked to observable phenomena and the established order of the natural world (God’s creation). This shows an intended harmony.
  • Examples of Linkage: Prayer times (Hukm Taklifi: Wajib) are determined by the sun’s position (Hukm Wad’i factor); the start of Ramadan fasting (Hukm Taklifi: Wajib) is determined by sighting the crescent moon (Hukm Wad’i factor).
  • Crucial Distinction: Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions: Understanding this helps clarify the subcategories of Hukm Wad’i.
    • Necessary Condition: MUST be present for an outcome, but doesn’t guarantee it alone. (Article example: Passport for international travel – necessary, but not sufficient).
    • Sufficient Condition: If present, GUARANTEES the outcome. (Article example: Correct key for a functioning lock – sufficient to open).
    • Combined Conditions: Multiple necessary conditions can together become sufficient. (Article example: Patty, buns, condiments are individually necessary for a burger; together they are sufficient).
  • Subcategories of Declaratory Law:
    • A. Cause (Sabab):
      • Definition: A sign or factor that God has designated as the sufficient trigger for a defining law to come into effect.
      • Logic: Its presence is sufficient for the ruling to apply; its absence is sufficient for the ruling not to apply.
      • Examples: The sun passing its zenith (sabab) makes the Dhuhr prayer obligatory (hukm taklifi); sighting the new moon (sabab) makes the Ramadan fast obligatory (hukm taklifi).
    • B. Condition (Shart):
      • Definition: A factor whose presence is necessary for the validity or effectiveness of a defining law, but which does not trigger the law by itself.
      • Logic: Its presence is necessary for the ruling’s validity; its absence is sufficient to invalidate the ruling.
      • Example: Ritual purity (Taharah, achieved through Wudu’ or Ghusl) is a shart for the validity of prayer (Salah). Prayer is invalid without it (absence sufficient for invalidity), but simply being pure doesn’t make prayer valid or obligatory at any random time (presence necessary but not sufficient).
    • C. Impediment (Mani’):
      • Definition: A factor whose presence prevents a defining law from taking effect or nullifies a cause/condition.
      • Logic: Its presence is sufficient to prevent the ruling; its absence is necessary (but not sufficient) for the ruling to potentially take effect.
      • Example: Being in a state of menstruation is a mani’ preventing a woman from performing Salah or fasting during Ramadan, even if the time (sabab) has arrived and other conditions (shart) are met. Another example from the article: Significant debt can be a mani’ preventing the obligation of Zakat (obligatory charity), even if one possesses the minimum threshold of wealth (nisab), because full ownership (a condition) might be compromised.

Nomic Judgement (Hukm ‘Adi) – The Domain of Custom and Observation

  • Foundation: Ash’ari Occasionalism Revisited:
    • Crucial Context: To understand Hukm ‘Adi, one must grasp Occasionalism. God is the sole, direct, and continuously active cause of all events.
    • No Intrinsic Causal Powers: Created entities (fire, water, medicine, atoms) possess no inherent power to produce effects. Fire does not burn by its nature; God creates the burning at the occasion of the fire’s proximity to a flammable object.
    • Divine Action: God’s will operates constantly, creating both causes and effects, or rather, creating events in consistent sequences.
  • Natural Laws as Divine ‘Customs’ (‘Ada):
    • What we perceive as “laws of nature” are not necessary, inherent principles governing reality. They are simply God’s consistent and habitual way of acting in the universe (‘adat Allah).
    • Contingency: God chooses to make fire usually burn, water usually quench thirst, gravity usually pull objects down. He could choose otherwise.
  • Defining Nomic Judgement (Hukm ‘Adi):
    • Source: Repeated Observation and Experience of the natural world.
    • Definition: Affirming a habitual connection or correlation (takarrur) between the presence or absence of one phenomenon and the presence or absence of another.
    • Etymology: ‘Adi comes from ‘ada (custom, habit), emphasizing that these connections are based on God’s customary way of acting, not on logical necessity or inherent causal powers.
  • Scope of Nomic Judgements:
    • Everyday Observations: Simple, commonly observed patterns (e.g., eating is habitually followed by satiety; lack of sleep is habitually followed by tiredness).
    • Scientific Laws: The framework fully encompasses scientific laws discovered through rigorous empirical investigation. Science, in this view, is the systematic study of God’s customs (‘adat Allah).
      • Accommodation of Deterministic and Probabilistic Laws: Al-Sanusi’s framework can incorporate both types of scientific laws as descriptions of divine custom:
        • Deterministic Laws (e.g., classical mechanics, thermodynamics): Describe fixed, predictable patterns where the same conditions reliably produce the same outcome. This reflects a highly consistent divine custom.
        • Probabilistic Laws (e.g., quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, aspects of evolutionary biology): Describe tendencies and probabilities rather than fixed certainties. This reflects a divine custom that operates statistically or with inherent indeterminacy at certain levels. (e.g., radioactive decay happens probabilistically, not predictably for a single atom).
      • This allows the framework to engage with modern science without being restricted to a purely deterministic worldview.
  • Logical Possibilities of Nomic Connections: Al-Sanusi systematically considers the ways phenomena habitually relate (based on presence/absence):
    • Presence-Presence: Habitual connection between the presence of X and the presence of Y. Example: Eating (presence) habitually correlates with Satiety (presence).
    • Absence-Absence: Habitual connection between the absence of X and the absence of Y. Example: Lack of rain (absence) habitually correlates with Lack of vegetation growth (absence).
    • Presence-Absence: Habitual connection between the presence of X and the absence of Y. Example: Hunger (presence) habitually correlates with Lack of satiety (absence).
    • Absence-Presence: Habitual connection between the absence of X and the presence of Y. Example: Lack of rain (absence) habitually correlates with Drought (presence).
    • Subtlety: The article notes that presence/absence can be relative (e.g., is darkness the absence of light, or the presence of a state called darkness?).
  • The Place of Miracles (Kharq al-‘Ada – ‘Breaking the Custom’):
    • Natural Consequence of Occasionalism: Since natural laws are merely God’s customs and He is the direct cause of all events, He can choose to act outside His usual custom.
    • Definition: A miracle is an extraordinary event where God suspends or alters His habitual way of acting in creation.
    • Not a ‘Violation’: Miracles don’t ‘violate’ inviolable laws (because there are none, only customs). They demonstrate God’s omnipotence and the ultimate contingency of the natural order.
    • Significance: Miracles often serve specific divine purposes, such as validating prophethood.

Rational Judgement (Hukm ‘Aqli) – The Domain of Pure Reason

  • Source: Pure Reason or Intellect (‘Aql) alone, independent of sensory experience (nomic judgements) or divine revelation (legal judgements).
  • Foundation: Grounded ultimately in the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) – the principle that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
  • Scope: Determines the modal status of concepts or propositions – whether they are Necessary, Impossible, or Possible according to the dictates of reason.
  • The Three Categories of Rational Judgement:
  1. Necessity (Wujub):
    • Definition: That whose non-existence is inconceivable to the mind; its negation implies a logical contradiction.
    • Nature: Arises from the intrinsic nature of the concept itself.
    • Examples:
      • Mathematical/Logical: “1 + 1 = 2”; “A whole is greater than its part”; “The sum of angles in a Euclidean triangle is 180 degrees.”
      • Metaphysical (within Ash’ari theology): “God’s existence” (as the Necessary Being – Wajib al-Wujud); “A body must occupy space.”
  2. Impossibility (Istihala):
    • Definition: That whose existence is inconceivable to the mind; its affirmation implies a logical contradiction.
    • Nature: Intrinsically self-contradictory.
    • Examples:
      • Logical: “A square circle”; “A four-sided triangle”; “Existing and not existing simultaneously.”
      • Metaphysical (within Ash’ari theology): “A partner existing alongside God”; “An infinite regress of contingent causes”; “A contingent being causing itself to exist.”
  3. Possibility (Jawaz / Imkan):
    • Definition: That whose existence OR non-existence is conceivable to the mind without implying any logical contradiction.
    • Nature: Lacks intrinsic necessity or impossibility; its actuality depends on external factors or choices (ultimately, God’s will).
    • Crucial Point: The entire created order (the universe and everything in it, apart from God) falls under the category of the Possible (or Contingent).
    • Examples:
      • Mundane: “The existence of this specific tree”; “Rainfall tomorrow”; “The color of a particular car.”
      • Scientific/Cosmic: “The existence of extraterrestrial life”; “The specific configuration of galaxies”; “The precise values of physical constants”; “The existence of the universe itself.”
  • Subcategories of Possibility (Jawaz): Al-Sanusi further refines ‘Possible’ based on epistemic certainty regarding its actualization:
  • A. Established / Actualised Possibility (al-ja’iz al-maqtu’ bi-wujudihi): Logically possible things that we know have occurred or do exist (based on reliable evidence, including revelation).
    • Examples: Development of vaccines, existence of electricity, the historical mission of prophets, the future resurrection (known through revelation).
  • B. Negated / Unactualised Possibility (al-ja’iz al-maqtu’ bi-‘adamihi): Logically possible things that we know have not occurred or do not exist.
    • Examples: Einstein winning a Nobel Prize in biology (logically possible, but didn’t happen); the salvation of specific individuals confirmed in revelation as condemned (e.g., Pharaoh, Abu Lahab – their salvation was logically possible before revelation specified their fate, but is now known not to be actualised).
  • C. Uncertain Possibility (al-ja’iz al-muhtamal li-l-wujud wa-l-‘adam): Logically possible things whose actualisation (existence or non-existence, occurrence or non-occurrence) is currently unknown or undetermined.
    • Examples: The future success of a new technology; whether a specific scientific theory will ultimately be confirmed; the ultimate fate (salvation/damnation) of a specific individual (from human perspective, depends on their life and God’s final judgement).
  • Role of Rational Judgements in Ash’ari Theology:
    • Foundation for Knowing God: Rational judgements are essential for establishing God’s existence and attributes.
    • Arguments for God’s Existence:
      • Contingency Argument (Dalil al-Imkan): Based on the rational judgement that possible/contingent beings (the universe) require an external cause, leading ultimately to a Necessary Being (Wajib al-Wujud) to avoid an impossible infinite regress.
      • Kalam Cosmological Argument (Dalil al-Huduth): Based on the premise that the universe began to exist (huduth – a possibility established rationally), and everything that begins needs a cause, leading to an eternal, uncaused First Cause (God – Necessary Being).
    • Establishing Divine Attributes: Rational necessity/impossibility are used to deduce attributes like God’s Oneness (Tawhid – impossibility of a partner), Power, Will, Knowledge, etc.

Part 3: Reflections on Al-Sanusi’s Framework and Its Implications for Science

The Unifying Theme – A God-Centric Framework

  • Centrality of God: A key takeaway from Al-Sanusi’s framework is its profound God-centric orientation. Each of the three types of judgement, while distinct, ultimately points back to or is grounded in God.
    • Legal Judgements (Hukm Shar’i): Directly grounded in Divine Command. Morality and law are not human constructs or derived from nature itself, but expressions of God’s revealed will (reflecting Divine Command Theory – DCT).
    • Nomic Judgements (Hukm ‘Adi): Grounded in Divine Will and Action. The regularities observed in nature (‘adat Allah or customs of God) are direct manifestations of God’s ongoing, active creation and sustenance of the universe (reflecting Occasionalism). Science studies these divine customs.
    • Rational Judgements (Hukm ‘Aqli): Grounded in Divine Necessity. The principles of reason (necessity, impossibility, possibility) ultimately lead the intellect to affirm the existence of a Necessary Being (Wajib al-Wujud) – God – as the ultimate foundation for all contingent reality.
  • Cohesion: This consistent grounding in God provides a cohesive and integrated worldview, preventing the fragmentation of knowledge into separate, unrelated domains.

Understanding the Hierarchy and Scope of the Judgements

  • Interrelated Spheres: Al-Sanusi’s framework presents the three domains not as isolated compartments, but as interconnected spheres with a specific hierarchy and scope, reflecting different epistemic bases (reason, observation, revelation).
  • 1. The Rational Sphere (Hukm ‘Aqli): Broadest Scope
    • Basis: Pure Reason.
    • Scope: Encompasses all that is logically Necessary, Impossible, or Possible. It defines the absolute limits of conceivability.
    • Function: Provides the fundamental epistemic foundation. Without the basic laws of reason (like non-contradiction), no coherent thought, observation, or understanding of revelation would be possible.
  • 2. The Nomic Sphere (Hukm ‘Adi): Subset of the Rational
    • Basis: Observation of God’s Customs (‘Ada) in creation.
    • Scope: Represents the subset of the rationally possible that God has actually willed into existence and maintains with regularity. It’s the domain of the empirical world and its observable patterns.
    • Function: Provides the stable, predictable context for life and scientific inquiry. It links abstract rational possibility to tangible reality.
    • Crucial Implication – Rejection of Scientism: The distinction between the broader Rational sphere and the narrower Nomic sphere is vital. It means reality is not limited to what is empirically observable or measurable (the Nomic). There are rationally conceivable possibilities (and necessities, like God) that lie beyond the scope of empirical science. This inherently counters scientism (the view that science is the only valid way to knowledge) and materialism (the view that only matter/energy exists).
    • Place for the Transcendent & Miracles: This distinction allows for phenomena outside the usual Nomic customs but within Rational possibility, such as miracles (kharq al-‘ada). Miracles don’t violate reason, only God’s custom. This upholds divine omnipotence without sacrificing logical coherence.
  • 3. The Legal Sphere (Hukm Shar’i): Narrowest Scope (in terms of domain, highest in practical guidance)
    • Basis: Divine Revelation.
    • Scope: Prescribes specific human actions (obligations, prohibitions, etc.) within the context of the actualised Nomic world.
    • Function: Provides ethical and religious guidance for human conduct.
    • Dependence: Legal rulings often presuppose the stability and regularities of the Nomic sphere. Example: The obligation to pray (legal) depends on the predictable movement of the sun (nomic) to determine prayer times (legal-declaratory). The obligation to fast (legal) depends on the regular lunar cycle (nomic).
    • Divine Grace: The article notes that the alignment between legal requirements and the nomic world is itself a matter of God’s grace, not an inherent necessity.
  • Hierarchy Summary: Rational -> Nomic -> Legal. Each sphere builds upon the one(s) encompassing it.
  • Al-Sanusi’s Presentation Order: Although Legal is narrowest in scope, Al-Sanusi often discusses it first in his works. This reflects the practical importance and honor given to Revelation as the primary guide for human action in Islamic tradition.
  • Role of Prophethood: This hierarchy highlights the role of prophets.
    • Prophets bring Revelation (Legal sphere).
    • Their claims are often validated by Miracles (breaks in the Nomic custom, but rationally possible).
    • Miracles are recognizable because of the background stability of the Nomic sphere.
    • Prophethood thus acts as the crucial link, connecting divine guidance (Legal) to the observable world (Nomic) and grounding it within rational possibility, integrating natural theology (reason/observation) with systematic theology (revelation).

Science as a Locus for Theological Reflection and Inquiry

  • Integrating Science: Al-Sanusi’s framework doesn’t just allow for science; it positions scientific inquiry as a meaningful, even religiously significant, activity.
  • Science and Nomic Judgements:
    • Core Connection: Science is fundamentally the disciplined study of the Nomic sphere – the investigation of God’s customs (‘adat Allah) in creation.
    • Purpose: By uncovering these patterns and regularities (whether deterministic or probabilistic), science reveals the wisdom, power, and intricate design embedded in God’s creation. It becomes an act of discerning Divine Signs (Ayat).
    • Historical Motivation: This perspective historically motivated Muslim scholars to study nature – not just for utility, but as a way to better understand and appreciate the Creator.
  • Science and Legal Judgements:
    • Practical Application: Scientific knowledge helps Muslims fulfill Legal obligations (Hukm Shar’i) more effectively, particularly those related to Declaratory Law (Hukm Wad’i).
      • Historical Examples: Astronomy was crucial for accurately determining prayer times, the direction of Qibla, and the Islamic lunar calendar (essential for Ramadan fasting and Hajj pilgrimage). Medicine was developed to preserve health and life, fulfilling the ethical mandate (related to Maqasid al-Shari’ah – higher objectives of the Law) to protect life.
    • Informing Legal Reasoning (Fiqh): Islamic jurisprudence has historically interacted with the empirical knowledge of its time.
      • Classical Examples: The article mentions rulings on water heated in metal containers (based on alchemical theories about leprosy) and debates on maximum pregnancy duration (based on reported cases and theories like the “sleeping fetus”). While the specific scientific understanding might be outdated, it shows jurists engaging with available empirical information.
      • Contemporary Examples: This interaction continues and intensifies today. Biomedical scientists now often participate directly in collective ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), informing and even co-authoring fatwas (religious edicts) on complex bioethical issues.
        • Topics: Ectogenesis (artificial wombs), euthanasia, organ transplantation, sex reassignment surgery, genetic engineering, end-of-life care.
        • These require nuanced legal rulings that consider both traditional ethical principles and modern scientific realities.
      • Environmental Science: Understanding climate change and ecology informs the Islamic ethical principle of stewardship (khilafa) over the Earth, leading to calls for conservation and sustainable practices based on scientific findings.
    • Dynamic Interaction: Science informs ethics and law, and ethical/legal questions can drive scientific inquiry. It’s a continuous dialogue aimed at aligning human action with divine objectives (Maqasid) in light of the realities of the created world.
  • Science and Rational Judgements:
    • Reinforcing Contingency: Scientific discoveries often highlight the contingency (possibility/jawaz) of the universe. The fine-tuning of physical constants, the complexity of biological systems, the vastness of the cosmos – all point away from inherent necessity and towards an external cause or designer.
    • Pointing to the Necessary Being: For Ash’aris, the intricate order and contingent nature revealed by science serve as further evidence pointing towards the Necessary Being (Wajib al-Wujud) – God – who wills and sustains this order.
    • Welcoming New Discoveries: Within this framework, new scientific discoveries are generally not seen as threats to faith, provided they don’t contradict core principles established by reason or revelation.
      • Discoveries operate within the realm of the Nomic (God’s customs) or explore the vastness of the Rationally Possible. They expand our understanding of how God creates and sustains.
      • Examples: Theories about the multiverse, the existence of extraterrestrial life, deeper understanding of quantum mechanics or cosmology – these explore possibilities within God’s creation and can be seen as further signs of His power and wisdom.
      • This fosters an attitude of intellectual confidence and curiosity rather than fear or suspicion towards scientific advancement.
  • Overall Theological Outlook:
    • Al-Sanusi’s framework provides a positive theological grounding for science.
    • Science is valued as a tool to:
      • Uncover Divine Signs and appreciate God’s wisdom (Nomic).
      • Aid in fulfilling religious and ethical duties (Legal).
      • Reflect on the contingency of creation and the necessity of the Creator (Rational).
    • Science is thus not alien or hostile to theology but can be pursued as a religiously meaningful endeavor, a locus for theological reflection.

Part 4: Conclusion and Further Reflection

  • Summary of Al-Sanusi’s Framework: Imam al-Sanusi provides a robust and coherent theological framework rooted in Ash’ari principles. His tripartite classification of judgements – Legal (Shar’i) based on Revelation, Nomic (‘Adi) based on observed Divine Custom, and Rational (‘Aqli) based on pure reason – offers a structured way to understand the relationship between God, creation, and human knowledge.
  • Key Strengths:
    • God-Centricity: Unifies all domains of knowledge and reality under Divine authority, will, and necessity.
    • Integration: Shows how reason, observation (science), and revelation work together within a hierarchical structure.
    • Flexibility: Accommodates both regularity (Nomic custom) and exceptional events (miracles) without contradiction.
    • Relevance to Science: Provides a positive theological basis for scientific inquiry as the study of God’s customs and signs, a means to fulfill ethical duties, and a path to reflect on creation’s contingency.
    • Counters Reductionism: By distinguishing the Nomic from the broader Rational sphere, it inherently rejects scientism and materialism.
  • Contemporary Significance: In an age often marked by perceived conflict between science and religion, Al-Sanusi’s framework offers a valuable resource for Muslims seeking to engage confidently and constructively with scientific advancements. It encourages viewing science not as a threat, but as a locus for theological reflection, deepening one’s understanding of Divine wisdom and power.
  • Important Reminder (Diversity): While this framework is powerful, it represents the Ash’ari perspective. Other Islamic theological schools (Maturidi, Mu’tazili, Athari, Falasifa, Shi’a) may offer different metaphysical assumptions and thus different approaches to the science-theology interface. Acknowledging this diversity is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of Islamic intellectual history.
  • Final Thought: By understanding the distinct domains and their interrelation, Al-Sanusi’s model equips individuals to navigate complex questions, appreciate the signs of God in the natural world, and integrate scientific knowledge within a holistic Islamic worldview.

dr.nouman.io

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *