BOOK PROPOSAL--LATEST

1

1. Proposed Title and Author Name

The Qurānic Theology, Philosophy and

Spirituality

NAME: Dr. Abdul Hafeez Fāzli

Professor/Chairman (Retired) Department of Philosophy, University

of the Punjab, Lahore, PAKISTAN.

Ex-President Pakistan Philosophical Congress

E-Mail: [email protected]

Cell No. +92-300-4550698

It is not a core textbook for any specific course. However it provides

enough material to be taken as a course book on “Quranic View of

Freewill and Predestination” or “Antinomies of Freewill in Islam” or

“Quranic Studies––Various Aspects” at graduate, post graduate and

higher levels.

It is an academic work which covers some important problems of Muslim

theology, Muslim philosophy, Sufism, Iqbaliyat, Contemporary Problems

of Muslim Thought taught at undergraduate, graduate and university

levels.

Each article included in this book is an original and thought provoking

work on that very problem and a trend setter with respect to its approach

and argument and is most likely to be of interest to students of Muslim

thought, the researchers, critics and lifelong learners, Muslims as well as

non-Muslims.

2

It relates to the following Areas/Fields

Philosophy,

Muslim Philosophy

Theology,

Sufism/Mysticism,

Islamic Studies

Qurānic Studies

Religious Studies in Islam

Christian Theology/Philosophy

Comparative Study of Religions

AIM OF THE BOOK

Aim of the book is to shake the Muslims to open their minds by showing

them the Qurānic way to ponder over their age-old problems. Another aim of the book is to enlighten the scholars/orientalists on the

problem of freewill and predestination, and offer reply to those who believe that Islam is predestinarian in nature.

MARKET

All the college and university departments and religious institutions which

offer coaching in the above subjects or areas, students of these

disciplines and the lifelong learners who take interest in these themes are

the prospective buyers of this book. Through these people the book is

expected to achieve its aim.

This is not a short-lived book. It offers genuine and innovative

solutions for perennial problems of Muslim theology, philosophy,

and mysticism, relates them to contemporary problems and gives

3

insight for future. So the work is supposed to be classical and

trendsetter in its significance and hoped to live for centuries.

Price of the book should be reasonable––neither low nor high.

Statsus of the Project:

The manuscript is ready for publication.

The manuscript consists of about 360 pages of 4 X 6 inches Text

Size in Times New Roman point 12. About 126000 words.

Synopsis (What the book is all about.)

The book consists of sixteen articles which cover a selection of early,

medieval, modern and contemporary problems of Muslim theology,

philosophy and mysticism published in renowned national and

international research journals from 1998 to 2013.

The book argues that the terms are never neutral; ideas ride on the back

of terms; and that most of the problems of Muslim Philosophy, Theology

and Mysticism which kept the Muslims occupied in early and medieval

centuries, and then in the modern period too, could not arise had the

Muslims’ not accepted un-Qurānic philosophical notions from Greeks

through Christians and then formulated their problems in these notions.

The book argues that the contemporary problems are no exception. We

are repeating the same mistake over and again.

Sixteen articles included in this book discuss sixteen main and many

secondary problems relating Muslim theology, philosophy, and Sufism to

prove the above contention; each article reconstructs the problem in

Qurānic notions and offers its solution.

Eight out of sixteen articles refute the view that Islam is predestinarian in

nature, and define the limits of human freedom on the authority of the

Qurānic teachings.

History

Four articles are published in Hamdard Islamicus Karachi.

4

Two articles are published in Iqbal Review. (Research Journal of the Iqbal Academy, Pakistan).

One article is published in The Muslim World, Hartford Seminary USA.

Two articles are published in BAZYAFT, bilingual Journal of the Urdu

Department, Oriental College, Punjab University Lahore.

Three articles are published in Al-Hikmat, The Research Journal of the

Department of Philosophy, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Four articles are published in International Journal of Humanities and

Social Sciences (IJHSS) from USA.

Two articles are published in International Journal of Humanities and Religion (IJHR) (online Journal recently published from India).

PARTS These articles are arranged into following Parts:

PART-1 QURĀNIC STUDY Four articles

PART-2 SPIRITUALITY One article

PART-3 OMNISCIENCE AND HUMAN FREEDOM Three articles

PART-4 FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION Five articles

PART-5 COMPARATIVE STUDIES One article

PART-6 ISLAM AND MODERNITY One article

PART-7 MUSLIM PHILOSOPHY One article

Eight out of sixteen articles included in this book relate to six different

aspects of the Problem of Freewill and Predestination in Islam. A full

course based on these articles can be made on this problem in any

institution.

All articles in this book present original and innovative research on the

very problem undertaken in that article. The summary of the articles

given below will make this point clear.

Solutions of problems presented in these articles are original, creative,

and based on the authority of the Qurān.

5

Short Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction

PART-1 QURANIC STUDY

1. Is al-ḥaqq one of al-Asmā al Ḥusna

2. Qurānic Ontology and Status of al-Haqq 3. The Quran: Creation or Command 4. Number of Verses of the Qurān (Index and Argument)

PART-2 MYSTICISM

5. The Way of Shahideen: The Construction of a Qurānic Theology of Sufism in Tafseer e Fāzli

PART-3 OMNISCIENCE AND HUMAN FREEDOM

6. Qurānic View of Omniscience and Human Freedom 7. Christian View of Omniscience and Human Freedom

8. Iqbal’s View of Omniscience and Human Freedom

PART-4 FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

9. Allah’s Omnipotence and Freedom of Will for Man 10. Free Will and Predestinarian Verses in the Qurān 11. Free Will and the Appointed Term (Ajl-e Mussamma)

12. Knowledge of Allah’s Pleasure (Raḍa) and Knowledge of Allah’s Will (Mashiyat)

13. Antinomy of Free Will and Pre-Ordained Sustenance

PART-5 COMPARATIVE STUDIES

14. H. A. Wolfson and A. H. Kamali on the Problem of Divine Attributes 15. State and State Craft: Relationship Between Islamic and Western

Paradigms

PART-6 MUSLIM PHILOSOPHY

6

16. Ibn Sina, Al-Gazali and Ibn Taymiyyah on the Origination of the World

A Longer Annotated Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction

PART-1 QURANIC STUDY

1. Is al-ḥaqq one of al-Asmā al Ḥusna

‘Al- ḥaqq’ as Preferred Name of Allah for wahdat al-wajūdi Sufism

Two fundamental presuppositions of wahdat al-wajūd

Qurān as final standard for determining the truth or validity of a doctrine.

Derivatives of the root ḥā qāf qāf in the Qurān

Various forms in which al-ḥaqq occurs in the Qurān

al-ḥaqq as ‘the truth’

Word of God as al-ḥaqq

al-ḥaqq (the truth) as opposite to al-bāṭil (falsehood), aḍ-ḍalāl (error), az-ẓann

(false suspicion, conjecture), bi ghayr l ḥaqq (wrongful)

Verses misinterpreted to signify ‘al-ḥaqq’ as one of al-Asmā’ al-Ḥusnā

Tradition which identifies Allah with Time

[This article argues that al-ḥaqq is not Allah’s Name, it is an epithet for the Qurān.]

Published in Bāzyaft: A Research Journal, vol. 9 (2006), pp.1-31, Department of Urdu, University of the

Punjab, Lahore.

2. Qurānic Ontology and Status of al-Haqq

Reply to the objections on writer’s views on the status of ‘al-ḥaqq’

Qurānic Ontology and un-Qurānic Ontology

kalām e nafsi (latent speech) and kalām-e-lafzi (expressed speech)

Waḥdat al-wujud: The very nomenclature is un-Qurānic

Reality and the Originator of Reality

7

The Qurān is Qawl (i.e., teaching, guidance, precept, advice, reminder, remembrance etc.) ‘Al-ḥaqq’ as epithet for the Qurān alone

[This article argues that Qurānic ontology consists of three things: God, the

Creation, and the Command. Whatever there is, falls to either of the three

categories. This view differs from traditional view which considers that

whatever there is, is either God (eternal/uncreated) or something created

(contingent).]

Publ ished in Bāzyaft: A Research Journal, Dec. 2009, Department of Urdu, University of the Punjab, Lahore.

3. The Quran: Creation or Command

Islam (belief) as a dīn (way of life)

Kufer (disbelief) as a dīn(way of life)

Createdness/uncreatedness of the Qurān: Mu‘tazilites and Ash‘arites views

Unarticulated apeech (kalam-e nafsi) and articulated speech (kalam-e lafzi)

Pre-existent Qurān and Revealed Qurān

Qurānic concept of Loḥim Meḥfūẓ (Preserved Tablet)

Kitab im-Maknun (Hidden Book)

Kinds of verses of the Qurān: Obligatory and allegorical

Qurānic principle for the interpretation of allegorical verses

Ummul Kitab (Foundation of the Book)

Qurānic Ontology: God, Creation and Command

Qurān as Command (amar)

[This article argues against Mu‘tazilites and Ash‘arites both that the Qurān is neither

eternal nor created, it belongs to the category of Allah’s Command.]

Published in International Journal of Humanities and Religion [IJHR], 2(10) December 2012: 75 -83, India .

4. Number of Verses of the Qurān (Index and Argument)

Wrong perception about the number of verses of the Qurān Index of Surahs and Verses Arguments showing that the total number of verses is 6238

[This article argues that it is absolutely incorrect that the number of verses of the Qurān is

6666. The argument gives reasons for preferring that they are 6238 instead of 6236.]

Published in IJHSS¸ Vol. 2 No. 19, October 2012, pp.264-67, USA

PART-2 MYSTICISM

5. The Way of Shahideen: The Construction of a Qurānic Theology of Sufism in

Tafseer e Fāzli

8

Qurānic term shāhid as origin of Sufism and Sufism as the Way of Shahideen

Development of sufism as a discipline

People of the right hand (aṣḥāb-ul-yamīn); those of the left hand (asḥāb-ush-shimāl); the foremost of the race (as-sābiqoon-al-awwaloon)

Word (qaul), practice (‘amal), ‘ilm (knowledge), Akhlāṣ (devoutness)

Shri’ah (the law), tariqah (the practice/the way), haqiqah (realism) and ma‘rifah (gnosis) as grades of believing and their relationship with each other

Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s analogy of a circle to explain the relationship between shri’at, tariqat and haqiqat

Analysis of another assertion of Seyyed Hossein Nasr about Hazrat Ali

Dr. Israr Ahmed’s view of the bifurcation of the personality of Shāhid into various facets, and risalat just a facet of the personality of prophet

Tradition concerning date palms and its implications: umūr-i-Dunya and umūr-i-Dīn

Sufism as Iḥsān-i-Islām: Examination of Chittick and Dr. Israr Ahmed’s Views

Awaisia not a chain of shāhidīn, rather a way of imparting spiritual knowledge

Wahdatal-wujūd, wahdatush-shahūd, wahdat-e-shâhidīn

[The article argues that the origin of Islamic spirituality or what is commonly called Sufism cannot be traced in the Qurānic term Iḥsān, or in terms ṣaff, ṣuffa, ṣῡf, ṣafa nor the

development of Sufism as a discipline can be explained by these terms . This study argues that the origin of Sufism lies in the Qurānic term shāhid and the Way of Shahideen is the

discipline for granting purification and then its verification.]

Publ ished in International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences [IJHSS]¸ Vol. 2 No. 16 [Special Issue of August 2012,

pp.259-75], Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA

PART-3 OMNISCIENCE AND HUMAN FREEDOM

6. Qurānic View of Omniscience and Human Freedom

History of the problem

Antinomies of freewill

View of Omniscience as ‘knowledge of everything particular and universal’ and as ‘eternal knowledge being the characteristic of God’

Fatalism, Predestination, Libertarianism

Distinction between descriptive and determinative functions of God’s eternal knowledge

Traditional Doctrine of Omniscience formulate by Saint Thomas Aquinas

Basic assumptions underlying traditional Christian approach;

The antinomy of Free Will and Allah’s Foreknowledge formulated by predestinarians to refute the view of libertarians

Qurānic concept of Allah’s Omniscience and of Human Freedom

Predestinarian Verses and their bearing on the problem under discussion

9

Reconstruction of the concepts of Preserved Tablet (al-lawh al- mahfūz), Mother of the Book (Umm al-Kitāb).

Qurānic concept of the categories of person coming in this world

[The study argues that the view of Omniscience prevalent among Muslims since centuries is contrary to Qurānic teachings. It argues that it is not essentially different from the Traditional Doctrine of Omniscience formulated by Saint Thomas Acquinas. The article reconstructs Omniscience and allied concepts on Qurānic basis. The article also examines the objection that such view will make Allah’s Knowledge incremental, and argues that the object does not apply to Qurānic God.]

Revised version of “Islamic View of Omniscience and Human Freedom”, published in Al-Hikmat, a research journal of the Department of Philosophy, University of the Punjab Lahore, Vol. 26 (2006).

7. Christian View of Omniscience and Human Freedom

Three main problems identified in Christian Tradition concerning the coherence of Divine Attribute of Omniscience with immutability, human freedom, and eternity

Formulations of the first two problems by Thomas Aquinas and the third one by Boethius.

Restatement of the first problem by Professor Norman Kretzman;

Statement of the problem relating the compatibility of Omniscience with human freedom in two versions by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae;

Brody’s restatement of these problems;

proposition de dicto and de re

Raymond Bradley and Norman Swartz’ view of these modal properties

Anthony Kenny’s view

Kvanvig, Maryline Adams, Plantinga’s and William Haskers

Doctrine of Omniscience and its Formulations: St. Anselm’s account of essential Omniscience, Traditional Doctrine of Omniscience by Thomas Aquinas; Molinistic account of essential Omniscience;

de re and de se awareness;

Kvanvig view of direct and indirect grasping;

Geach’s anti-realism concerning the future;

Basic assumptions underlying traditional Christian approach;

Richard’s Swinburn’s Criticism of the Traditional Doctrine of Omniscience;

Conception of God’s Eternity in Christian theological tradition as ‘Everlastingness’ and ‘timeless’ and their implications;

Conclusion and comparison with Islamic view.

[The study confines to the problem of the compatibility of omniscience and human freedom and touch the

first and the third problems only if so needed. The study examines different formulations of the problem as

well as solutions attempted by Christian theologians/philosophers. Saint Thomas Aquinas’ formulation of

Omniscience is known as Traditional Doctrine of Omniscience. History of Christian thought on this

problem is basically formulation and reformulation of this doctrine in different ways. These formulations

10

and reformulations are examined and it is seen that Saint Thomas’ absolutist approach make it incoherent

with human freedom. We agree with Swinburne that there is essential incompatibility between God’s

Omniscience and human free will, if the traditional doctrine of Omniscience is accepted. Swinburne asserts

that it is contrary to Biblical teachings as well. We believe that the correct formulation of the concept of

Omniscience must include an indeterminate aspect concerning free choice of a human action.]

Published in Iqbal Review, Lahore: Iqbal Academy Pakis tan, vol .47 no. 4, October 2006, p. 33-68.

8. Iqbal’s View of Omniscience and Human Freedom

Three theses concerning Divine Knowledge; Discursive or passive Omniscience;

God’s knowledge as a kind of reflecting mirror; God’s knowledge as living creative activity; God not as pure actuality but as Absolute Ego with infinite possibilities of self-revelation; Transcendence and Immanence (Tanzih and Tashbih) Transcendence with Immanence (Tanzih-m‘at-Tashbih) Rebuttal of Iqbal’s identification of God with Time;

Rebuttal of the view that ad-Dahr (time) is one of the beautiful names of God.

Critical examination of M. S. Raschid’s views on Iqbal’s thought; Pantheism and panentheism;

M. M. Sharif’s view of Iqbal’s concept of God; Points of difference and agreement between Ward and Iqbal’s concept of God;

The Qurānic God: Supremely transcendent but not immanent.

[Divine Omniscience and human freedom are two of the basic postulates of the Islamic faith. This

study elaborates and examines Iqbal’s formulation of Divine Knowledge undertaken in his Reconstruction

of Religious Thought in Islam, and draws its implications for freedom of will for man. We reach the

conclusion that Iqbal’s concept of Absolute Ego is not reconcilable with the Qurānic concept of God and

neither is his philosophical concept of Omniscience.]

Published in The Muslim World, vol. 95, Number 1, January 2005, pp. 125-45, Hartford Seminary 77 Sherman Street

Hartford CT 06105 USA.

PART-4 FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

9. Allah’s Omnipotence and Freedom of Will for Man

Antinomy of Divine Power and human freedom;

Theories of acquisition as solutions to this antinomy

Ḍirār and Najjār’s View

Use of the Term ‘Creation’ for ‘Acquisition’ in M‘utazilite’s and Use of the Term ‘Power’

for ‘Acquisition’ in Ash‘arites;

Baqilani, Juwayni, and Ghazali;

KASB (acquisition) and KHALQ (creation)

Analysis

The Derivatives of the Root KĀF SĪN BA

11

Derivatives of the Root Kha Lām Qāf

‘Amal and Khalq

‘Amal and Other Synonymous Words

Examination of the Mu‘tazilite Theories of Acquisition and Creation

Examination of Ash‘arite Theories of Acquisition and Creation

Conclusion

[Divine Power encompasses all things is a principle taught in the Qurān. In the presence of such a principle a

school of Muslim theologians with predestinarian bent of mind––the Ash‘arites, found it impossible to believe

human free will without certain preconditions. Whereas the Mu‘tazilites––a school of Muslim theologians with

libertarian bent of mind–– stressed human free will in an unconditional sense. The study examines the views of

the Ash‘arites and the Mut‘atazilites with reference to this antinomy and argues that Qurānic concept of

‘Allah’s Power’ ( Allah possesses Power over all things: 46:33; 85:40; 2:20; 2:106; 2:109; 2:148; 2:259; 3:26;

3:29) and Qurānic concept of Allah’s Will (Mashiat––All consequences are in His control.) nowhere contradict

human freedom.]

Published in Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XXV, No. 1, (January-March 2002) Bait al-Hikma at Madinat al-Hikma, Karachi, Pakistan, p. 31-40.

10. Free Will and Predestinarian Verses in the Qurān

The predestinarians, and the libertarians;

The antinomy arising from verses concerning predestined condemnation of Walid bin Mughira and of Abu Lahb; Kinds of the verses of the Qurān: Imperatival (Muḥkamāt) and the Allegorical

(Mutashabihāt); Preserved Tablet (Loḥ im Maḥfooẓ);

Kitab im Maknoom (Well-Protected Book); Mother of the Books (Umm ul Kitab); Conclusion

[The Qurān contains condemnation of two sinners; one, Abu Lahb, whose name is explicitly mentioned at

111:1-5, and the other, Walid b. Mughira, who is only alluded to at 74:11-26. Moreover, at the conclusion of the

predestined condemnation of Walid for his predestined sin, as Wolfson observes, there is the verse, ...Thus Allah

leads astray whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases, which is a direct denial of man’s freedom in both

his doing of evil and doing of good. The antinomy of freewill and predestinarian verses in the Qurān refers to

these events and tries to show that the Qurān contains sets of libertarian as well as predestinarian verses which

does not cohere with each other. The study examines in the perspective of Qurānic teachings, the concepts on

which the dilemma is based to show that, among other things, it were the unwarranted formulations of certain

key concepts which gave rise to these disagreements.]

Published in Hamdard Islamicus, XXII (4), 1999, p. 97-105

11. Free Will and the Appointed Term (Ajl-e Mussamma)

Antinomy arising for human freedom from the concept of the inexorability of the

appointed term (ajal-e mussamma)

12

Qurānic concept of ‘the appointed term’ (ajal/ajal-e mussamma) and the Qurānic concept

of its ‘inexorability’;

Qurānic concept of ‘the freedom of will’;

‘Death’ and ‘Killing’;

Conclusion

[This study examines the antinomy arising for human freedom from the concept of the

inexorability of the appointed term (ajal-e mussamma), reconstructs the concepts of ‘the

appointed term’ and its ‘inexorability’ in the light of the Qurānic teachings and argues that

the original teachings of Islam as described in the Qurān had never been predestinarian and

the antinomy is based on mistaken notions.]

Published in Hamdard Islamicus, XXIII (4), 2000. p. 63-68

12. Knowledge of Allah’s Pleasure (Raḍa) and Knowledge of Allah’s Will

(Mashiyat)

Killing of a boy by a servant of Allah (commonly known as Hazrat Khiḍr); Difference between Knowledge of Allah’s Pleasure and Knowledge of Allah’s Will (Mashiyat);

Exoteric and Esoteric knowledge; ilm-e ladunni ––– a special knowledge granted by Allah to some of His servants; [There is essential difference between ‘Allah’s Pleasure’ (Raḍa) and ‘Allah’s Will’ (Mashiyat).

Much confusion in Muslim thought in problems relating human freedom and predestination has

arisen because of not understanding this difference. The narration of the event of killing of a boy by

Hazrat Khiḍr in the Qurān makes the difference between these two kinds of knowledge evident.

Focusing on the above narrative the present study attempts to define the contours of these dimensions

of God-given knowledge in Qurānic perspective.] Publ ished in IJHSS¸ Vol. 2 No. 19 [Special Issue October 2012], pp.298-300, USA

13. Antinomy of Free Will and Pre-Ordained Sustenance

Stating the antinomy; Problem arises from un-Qurānic concepts of Allah’s Bounty, His Will and Pleasure; Qurānic concepts of Allah’s Bounty, His Will and Pleasure;

[The study argues that Allah approves at present the measure of sustenance for each individual according to

His Absolute Knowledge and Wisdom. The pre-ordaining of sustenance as wrongly supposed in the

dilemma does not mean that it has been preordained as to its measure from the creation of the universe or

from the birth of the individual.]

Publ ished in IJHSS, Vol. 2 No. 19 [Special Issue October 2012], pp.192-94, USA

PART-5 COMPARATIVE STUDIES

14. H. A. Wolfson and A. H. Kamali on the Problem of Divine Attributes

Attributism and antiattributism in Muslim Kalam;

Extradeical and intradeical interpretation of Platonic Ideas;

Theory of modes (aḥwāl);

13

Semantic aspect of the problem of the relationship of Divine being and His

attributes;

Extradeical and intradeical interpretation of Platonic Ideas;

Method of selection and rejection;

Method of Harmonization;

Harmonization by Succession;

Harmonization by Unification;

Origin of the problem of Divine attributes in Islam–––From Trinity to attributism;

Anti-attributists in Islam and its resemblance with Sabellianism in Christianity;

A. H. Kamali’s logic of the Qurānic term Ism (اسم , Name) vs. logic of the term

Ṣiffah (Attribute);

[This study argues that the problem of Divine Attributes in Muslim Kalam, ultimately has its origin in

one of the different interpretations of Plato’s theory of Ideas. A. H. Kamali in a series of his three

articles, has presented the views similar to Wolfson on the origin of the problem of Divine Atributes in

Muslim Kalam. This study further argues that Kamali’s view is more comprehensive and enlightening

than Wolfson as Kamali not only traces the origin and development of this problem in Muslim

theology and philosophy and ‘Tasawaf’ but also makes a more significant and positive contribution by

developing a logic of Divine Names. ] Published in Iqbal Review, 40(3), 1998, p. 81-96.

15. State and State Craft: Relationship Between Islamic and Western Paradigms

Islam and Kufer both are Dīn (the way of life)

Qurān as al-haqq (the standard of truth)

al-haqq (the truth), al-bâtil (falsehood), ẓann ― unfounded conjecture, az-zalâl (wrong), fisq

(moulding truth according to one’s desires)

Shirk (To give equal importance to anyone’s saying as the Word of Allah)

‘Modernity’ ― a human endeavour ― as Dīn

Islam and Modernity as opposing paradigms and their postulates

Social values and disvalues upheld by Islam

State as apex organization of social life

Qurānic concept of state:

To call a State Muslim/Islamic or a Non-Muslim/Un-Islamic is against Qurānic teachings

No unification of state with religion

Principle of non-coercion and principle of social justice

Bid‘at ––– The principle of innovation in Islam

Types of bid‘at: lawful (bid‘at-e ḥasana) and unlawful (bid‘at-e-sayyia’)

14

Rahbaniyyat (monastic asceticism)

Bid‘at-e ḥasana ––The principle for benefitting from man-made experiments in Islam

[The study argues that Islam and Modernity are two opposing paradigms. They disagree with each

other in all their postulates. They are so drastically different that no viable understanding between

the two at any level seems possible. But Islam does not leave us to wander in darkness. The Qurān

opens the way of bid‘at (innovation). The present study explores the possibil ities of working out a

relationship between Islam and modernity in l ine with the Divine Decree la talbisul haqqa bil batili

in the perspective of state and statecraft.]

Published in Al-Hikmat, Vol. 28 (2008), Research Journal of the Department of Philosophy, University of the

Punjab, Lahore, pp. 71-80

PART-6 MUSLIM THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY

16. Ibn Sina, Al-Gazali and Ibn Taymiyyah on the Origination of the World

Reconciling religion, science and philosophy Creation vs. eternity of the world Assertion of Will for Allah –– a standard Islamic belief Denial of Will as Divine Attribute by Ibn Sina and its implications Denial of the creation of the world Doctrine of emanation and its implications Denial of freedom for God, denial of freedom for man, denial of miracles, denial of bodily resurrection, denial of God’s knowledge of particulars Rejection of Aristotle’s definition of ‘will’ by Ghazali; F. H. Hourani’s comments on Ibn Rushd’s defense of Ibn Sina;

Aristotle’s theory of causation as accepted by Muslim philosophers; Ghazali’s reconstruction of the theory of causation;

Hume, Mill, and Russell on theory of causation; Scientific cosmology of al-Farabi and Ibn Sina's times; Ptolemy's model of the world and its impact on theory of emanation; Acceptance of Aristotelian metaphysics by Muslim philosophers; Refutation of al-Farabi and Ibn Sina’s arguments and theory of emantion by Ghazali Doctrine of the Continuity of Effects by Ibn Taymiyyah and its presuppositions;

Critical examination of Ibn Taymiyyah’s doctrine.

[In their attempt at the reconciliation of religion and philosophy, Muslim philosophers (al-Farabi

and Ibn Sina) had to deny all the major beliefs of Islam. Imam Ghazali, with great philosophical

acumen, locates the presuppositions which made them deviate from standard Qurānic beliefs and

reconstructs them so as to prove Islamic beliefs fully rational. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, a great Muslim

thinker also enters in the discussion, but is entangled in un-Qurānic notions like ‘absolute and fixed

privation’ and principles like ‘Inconceivability of Inaction of Divine Attributes.’ etc. Controversy

between these thinkers is not merely an intellectual heritage of Muslim history, but also has intimate

relevance with our own times. This provides us with a criterion to examine our own approach

towards the relationship between religion and the philosophical and scientific world views of our

times.] Published in International Journal of Humanities and Religion (IJHR), 2(1), February, 2013, 19-30

15

Summary of Main Issues

PART-1 QURANIC STUDY

Al-Ḥaqq means the standard of truth. For centuries the Muslims have

believed al-ḥaqq to be the comely Name of God. First time in the history

of Muslim Culture, the article “Is al-ḥaqq one of al-Asmā al Ḥusna”

differs with this belief and argues that al-ḥaqq is the title used in the

Qurān for the Scripture, the Word of God, and not for God. God is the

Descender of the truth. The belief, the idea, the ideology, the notion, the

simile, the vision, imagination, the religious experience or whatever is in

accordance with the truth is truth, what is against it is untruth.

All the articles of this book examine on their respective themes how this

principle is overlooked and how it has created problems for Muslim

Thought.

The article “Qurānic Ontology and Status of al-Haqq” replies various

objections raised by critic/s with reference to the thesis that “al-ḥaqq is

the title used in the Qurān for the Word of God, and not for God” and

argues that the controversy arises from incorrect understanding of

Qurānic Ontology on by such scholars. The Qurānic Ontology consists of

three principles: God, Creation (Khalq) and Command (Amar). This article

also points out the implications of following un-Quranic ontology by

Muslim theologians.

The M’utazilites and the Asha’rites both believed that the Quranic

Ontology consists of two principles: God and His Creation. Whatever is

not God is His Creation. The M’utazilites believed that the Qurān was

created whereas the Asha’rites believed it to be uncreated and eternal.

The article “The Qurān: Creation or Command” arguing that the

Qurānic Ontology consists of three principles: God, Creation (Kha lq) and

Command (Amar) offers a solution for a perennial problem of Muslim

Theology relating Createdness vs. Eternity of the Qurān. First time in the

history of Muslim Thought the article argues that the controversy is the

outcome of accepting Un-Qurānic ontology and offers a solution that the

Qurān is neither Created nor Eternal, it belongs to the category of

Command (Amar).

It is considered that the total number of verses of the Qurān is 6666. The

article “Number of Verses of the Qurān (Index and Argument)”

declares that it is absolutely incorrect that the total number of verses of

16

the Qurān is 6666. There is no difference among Muslims as to the Text of

the Qurān, however some scholars divide the Qurānic Text into 6236

verses whereas some other divide it into 6238 verses. This article argues

that the Quranic Text consists of 6238 verses. Table of the verses is given

to prove our contention.

PART–––––2 MYSTICISM

The Qurān is the fundamental religious document and basic source of

Islamic faith. Sufism is a phenomenon which organized itself into a

discipline in the early centuries of Islam. A great majority of Muslims

have always believed it quite coherent with the spirit of their faith. But

the question is: Where does lie its origin in the Qurān! Muslim scholars

have been searching for the answer since centuries. They have tried to

explain the origin of Islamic spirituality in terms of words like 'saf', 'sūf',

'suffa', 'wujūd', 'Ihsān', 'hubb', 'tazkia' etc. but could not explain its origin

and its development into a discipline on Quranic grounds. The article

“The Way of Shahideen: The Construction of a Qurānic Theology

of Sufism in Tafseer e Fāzli” argues that first time in fourteen hundred

years long history of Muslim Culture Tafseer-e-Fāzli (an exegesis of the

Quran, 7 vols, 1982-1998) traces the origin of this discipline in the

Qurānic word ‘Shāhid’. According to the TF the epithet used by the Qur’ān

for what is commonly called ‘sufi mentor’ is ‘shāhid’ (witness), ‘Tariqat-i-

Shāhidīn’ (The Way of Shāhidīn) is the right epithet to be used for sufism,

which is a discipline for granting purification (tazkia) and then its

verification (tasdīq). As compared to wahdat al-wujud and wahdat ash-

shahud, Tafseer-e-Fāzli offers wahdat-e-Shahideen as a metaphysical

doctrine.

PART––––––3 OMNISCIENCE AND HUMAN FREEDOM

Writers like Martin Schreiner, Ignacz Goldziher, R. Nicholson Franz

Rosenthal, Harry Austrian Wolfson all argue that the Islamic teachings are

predestinarian in nature. Religious scholars like Dr. Muhammad Fethullah

Gülen promote such views about Islam. Eight out of sixteen articles

included in this book differ with this view and define the limits of human

freedom in Qurānic perspective. Examining antinomies relating

Omniscience, Omnipotence, Predestinarian verses of the Qurān,

Inexorability of the Appointed Term, Pre-ordained Sustenance, Divine

Pleasure and Divine Will etc., it has been argued in these articles that not

17

a single person ever born including Iblis (Satan), Pharaoh, Abu Lahb (who

is condemned as sinner by name in the Qurān) was ever born such that

he was predetermined in Allah’s Knowledge to leave the world as sinner.

The most significant thing about this book is that everything argued in

this book is argued on the authority of the Qurān; that nothing said in

this book is without the authority of the Qurān.

The article “Qurānic View of Omniscience and Human Freedom”

argues that the view of Omniscience prevalent among Muslims since

centuries is contrary to Qurānic teachings as it conceives God as an

eternal Script Writer who eternally knows what is going to happen to a

character or what is going to be performed by a character in any episode

in this everlasting drama. It argues that it is not essentially different from

the Traditional Doctrine of Omniscience formulated by Saint Thomas

Acquinas. The article reconstructs the concept of Omniscience and allied

concepts (nature and purpose of human life, Preserved Tablet, Hidden

Book, categories of men, createdness/uncreatedness of the Qurān etc.)

on Qurānic basis and argues that though there are three types of persons

that come in this world: Some are sent in this world as role model of

righteousness and are predestined in Allah’s Knowledge to leave this

world as righteous ones; all others come in this world such that it is not

predestined in Allah’s Knowledge whether they will leave the world as

righteous or sinner; that no person ever comes in this world such that it is

predestined in Allah Knowledge that he/she will leave the world as sinner.

The article also examines the objection that such view will make Allah’s

Knowledge incremental, and argues that the objection does not apply to

Qurānic God.

Allama Mohammad Iqbal (1877-1938), who is an eminent Muslim thinker

of the modern era discusses the concept of Omniscience only with

reference to its implications for Freedom of God and develops his own

philosophical concept of Omniscience.i He does not discuss the bearings of

any concept of Omniscience for actions of human free will. The article

“Iqbal’s View of Omniscience and Human Freedom” published in

The Muslim World, in 2005 examines Iqbal’s concept of God and his

concept of Omniscience and does not find it consistent with the Qurānic

teachings. “La tasubu addahr, fa innallaha howa addahr.” (Do not vilify

time for Allah is time.) is considered to be a saying of the Prophet (pbuh).

It contradicts with the Qurān, therefore cannot be a saying of the

Prophet. Nowhere in the Qurān Allah identifies Himself with Time (ad-

dahr). Iqbal conceives ‘time’ as an essential element of God’s Beingii and

offers the above mentioned tradition as a proof. The word ad-dahr (the

18

time) occurs only at two places in the Qurān. In surah al-Jāthiya the

disbelievers are reported to be saying: “There is naught but [only] our life

of the world; we die and we live, and naught destroyeth us save time [al-

Dahr]; when they have no knowledge whatsoever of (all) that; they do

but guess.” (45:24) The disbelievers deny afterlife and requital and

attribute what happens to them to al-Dahr as if al-Dahr (time) was but

over and above everything like a superior fate. In surah al-Dahr the

Qur’ān says: “Hath there come upon man (ever) any period of time [al-

Dahr] in which he was a thing unremembered?” (76:1) There is no sense

in drawing the identification of al-Dahr with Allah or taking it as the Good-

Name of Allah on the basis of these verses. The article argues on the

authority of the Qurān that the alleged tradition can never be a saying of

the Prophet. The Qur’ān does not endorse the view that ‘Allah is time’.

It has been commonly understood that Divine Knowledge, even though

eternal and inclusive of foreknowledge of free human actions, does not

restrict human freedom. But the philosophers and theologians both in the

Muslim and the Judaeo-Christian tradition have pointed out that

apparently the doctrine of Omniscience of God does not cohere with the

doctrine of freewill of man. The article “Christian View of Omniscience

and Human Freedom” is an attempt to examine different formulations

of the problem as well as solutions attempted by Christian

theologians/philosophers for their similarity and bearings on the view of

omniscience traditionally believed by Muslims. We observe that Saint

Thomas Aquinas’ formulation of the doctrine of omniscience in an

absolutist manner makes it incoherent with the concept of human

freedom. This formulation is known as Traditional Doctrine of

Omniscience. History of Christian thought on this problem is basically

formulation and reformulation of this doctrine in different ways. We agree

with Swinburne that there is essential incompatibility between God’s

Omniscience and human free will, if the traditional doctrine of

Omniscience is accepted. Swinburne asserts that it is contrary to Biblical

teachings as well. On the basis of our understanding of ‘Islamic View of

Omniscience and Human Freedom’ we believe that the correct formulation

of the concept of Omniscience must include an indeterminate aspect

concerning free choice of a human action.

PART–––––4 FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION

Divine Power encompasses all things is a principle taught in the Qurān. In the

presence of such a principle a school of Muslim theologians with

19

predestinarian bent of mind––the Ash‘arites, found it impossible to believe

human free will without certain preconditions. Whereas the Mu‘tazilites––a

school of Muslim theologians with libertarian bent of mind–– stressed human

free will in an unconditional sense. This disagreement involved these groups

in polemics. They not only formulated arguments to justify their point of view,

but also devised arguments to falsify their opponents. Antinomy is a form of

argument which is presented as a challenge to show that whatever approach

the opponent adopts, he is bound to meet such results as are equally

unacceptable to him. Abu al-Hasan Al-Ash‘ari, the founder of Ash‘arite school,

formulated antinomies on different aspects of the problem of human free will,

‘antinomy of Divine Power and Human free will’ being one among them.iii The

article “Allah’s Omnipotence and Freedom of Will for Man” examines

the theories of acquisition presented by Ash‘arites and the Mut‘atazilites with

reference to this antinomy. Reconstructing the concept of Omnipotence as

Allah’s Power over the consequences, analyzing a moral action into

‘intention’, ‘line of action’ and ‘consequences’ the article argues that there

is no incoherence between Allah’s Power and human freedom.

There is a difference between ‘Allah’s Pleasure’ (raza) and ‘Allah’s Will’

(mashiat). Much confusion in Muslim Thought and especially in problems

relating Divine Omnipotence and human freedom has arisen because of

not keeping in view this difference. Divine revelation has always been the

source of knowing Allah’s Pleasure and the prophets, the messengers,

have always been presenting the model of Allah’s Pleasure in their lives.

So the knowledge of Allah’s Pleasure is always clearly stated, declared,

determined and foreknown. Whereas consequences are subservient to

Allah’s Will. Allah’s Absolute Power over the consequences is His Will

(mashiyat). Allah’s Will is not known, or foreknown (except to him whom

He please), it is not declared. It may not be determined in Allah’s

Knowledge even as stated in verse 3:165-166. The article “Knowledge

of Allah’s Pleasure (Raḍa) and Knowledge of Allah’s Will

(Mashiyat)” makes this difference clear narrating the event of Hazrat

Mūsa and Hazrat Khizer as stated in the Qurān.

There is a concept of an ‘appointed term of life’ in the Qurān. It has been

stated in the Qurān that when the appointed term of life comes for the

disbelievers, the realities they had been denying throughout their life

become manifest on them. Now they beg for respite promising that they

will follow the guidance sent by Allah and will live according to it . It is said

to them that neither the ‘appointed term’ comes in advance nor can it be

delayed. An antinomy argument has been formulated by the

predestinarians to prove that the libertarians’ stand point was not correct.

20

The article “Free Will and the Appointed Term (Ajl e Mussamma)”

examines this dilemma and shows that it is based on un-Qurānic concept

of the inexorability of the appointed term (ajl-e-musamma) and does not

pose a challenge to human freewill. Span of ‘life’ or the term of ‘death’ are

not appointed inexorably. The Creator of life can extend life and the

Creator of death can postpone death for as much time as He Wills.

Actually it is the wrongdoers who entreat for respite when death reaches

them, and it is they who are denied such respite.

The problem of free will and pre-ordained sustenance presents one of the

various dimensions of the problem of free will and predestination identified by

Muslims and orientalists both with respect to Islam. The study “Antinomy of

Free Will and Pre-Ordained Sustenance” argues that the problem arises

from un-Qurānic concept of Allah’s Bounty, His Will and Pleasure. Allah approves

at present the measure of sustenance for each individual according to His

Absolute Knowledge and Wisdom. Qurān says: He straitens the provisions for

some, He amplifies for some, and He gives provisions without measure for whom

He please. Therefore pre-ordaining of sustenance as wrongly supposed in the

dilemma does not mean that it has been preordained as to its measure from the

creation of the universe or from the birth of the individual.

On the problem of freewill, in the early centuries there arose sects known

as the predestinarians, and the libertarians among Muslim. According to

the former there is no distinction between the actions that occur in the

world including the actions which occur to man, and the actions which are

performed by man.iv According to the later, there is a distinction between

actions that occur in the world, including actions which occur to man

and actions performed by man. The former actions admitted by all (but

two of the libertariansv) to be directly created by Allah; the later actions

are taken by them to be performed by man’s free will. Conflicting sects

formulated arguments, mostly in the form of antinomies, to confront each

other with difficulties. H. A. Wolfson, presents five of these antinomies in

his The Philossophy of the Kalamvi with reference to Ashari’s Ibana…, and

Makalat, Bagdadi’s Fark, and Shahrastani’s Milal, and other sources. The

article “Free Will and Predestinarian Verses in the Qurān” examines

only the first of these antinomies. Taking clue from these polemics, the

orientalists try to draw the conclusion that the Qurān contains sets of

libertarian as well as predestinarian verses which sets does not cohere

with each other. The study examines, in the vast perspective of Qurānic

teachings, the concepts on which the dilemma is based to show that,

among other things, it were the unwarranted formulations of certain key

concepts which gave rise to these disagreements.

21

PART––––5 COMPARATIVE STUDIES

‘Attribute’ means siffah which is a derivative of the Arabic root ṣ-f-t.

The Qurān nowhere positively ascribes the word siffah to God. The

Qurān ascribes attributive names (i.e., the Most Beautiful Names) to

Allah and not the Attributes. Aristotelian metaphysics conceives

everything as composed of two principles i.e., essence and attributes.

It conceives ‘attributes’ to be real and superadded to the ‘essence’.

Had the Muslims kept in view this fact they could have saved from

entangling into useless discussions on the problem of the relationship

of Divine Essence and Attributes. The Ash’arites claimed that Attributes

were real in their own right and superadded to the Being of God. The

Mu’tazilites denied them to be so and declared the Being of God and

His Attributes to be identical. None of the two theological schools

realized that they have entangled into a useless discussion by inserting

un-Qurānic notion of ‘attribute’ into a discussion relating Islamic

theology. The problem is part of Muslim theology since centuries with

no solution. First time in the history of Muslim theology Abdul Hameed

Kamali, a Karachite scholar, very aged now, has drawn the attention of

the Muslim scholars that the problem should be reconstructed in

Qurānic terms i.e., ‘the Name’ (Ism) and ‘the Named’ (Musammā) and

himself has tried to develop a logic of Divine Names. This is a very

original and genuine attempt. The study “H. A. Wolfson and A. H.

Kamali on the Origin of the Problem of Divine Attributes in

Muslim Kalam” argues that whereas both Wolfson and Kamali agree

that the problem of the Relationship of Divine Essence and Attributes

in Muslim Kalam, ultimately has its origin in Greek philosophy, Abdul

Hameed Kamali goes further and makes a more significant and positive

contribution by presenting a quite new and genuine attempt in the

right direction.

Qurān addresses the individuals as Muslims or disbelievers; the epithet

Muslim or a Disbeliever or Islamic or Un-Islamic nowhere applies to a

State or country. So to call a State Muslim/Islamic or a Non-Muslim/Un-

Islamic State is against Qurānic teachings. The article “State and State

Craft: Relationship Between Islamic and Western Paradigms”

argues that the State of Madinah, founded by the Prophet (pbuh), was an

administrative set up brought about for the peaceful co-existence of

various identities in accordance with their respective religions or cultures

and further argues that unification of State and Religion has given nothing

except immense pain and suffering to the mankind. This study also

22

argues that Bid’at (Innovation) is a principle given in the Qurān for

relating revealed knowledge with knowledge evolved through human

experiences and experimentation. The Qurānic principle of Bid’at

(Innovation) provides basis to ijtihād which is given in hadith. Unluckily

the Muslims have abandoned this Qurānic principle because of their

shortsightedness with reference to a hadith which is actually meant for

condemning unlawful and vile innovation only. Since some eminent

religious scholars in the past have condemned innovation (bid’at) so the

Muslims do not realize the real significance of this principle. Islamic and

Western paradigms essentially differ from each other but we can benefit

from the experiments made in the western civilization in politics,

economics, administration, education, medicine, warfare and various

other fields consciously and deliberately on the basis of this principle. The

principle of innovation demarcates the lines and limits for benefitting from

man-made knowledge with religious approval.

PART––––6 MUSLIM PHILOSOPHY

Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina are very close to each other in their views.vii Ibn

Sina (Avicenna) developed these ideas much more than al-Farabi did. In

history of Muslim philosophy they both are referred to as Muslim

philosophers. The Muslim philosophers got so much impressed by Plato

and Aristotle that they accepted their philosophical views as the standard

of rational truth. As Muslim they believed religion as the revealed truth.

Philosophical system and the scientific world view by which one gets

impressed, as said above, assumes the status of a rational version of

truth for him. If one already believes in a revealed religion the problem of

reconciliation of revealed and rational versions of truth takes utmost

importance. In the history of religious philosophy, this desire for

reconciliation has emerged in the form of reconstruction of religious

thought in terms of prevalent philosophical and scientific theories. This is

undertaken with the purpose to make the rational face of religion more

manifest. But in the end it is the religion that suffers. In their attempt at

the reconciliation of religion and philosophy, Muslim philosophers had to

deny all the major beliefs of Islam. The study “Ibn Sina, Al-Gazali and

Ibn Taymiyyah on the Origination of the World” examines how

Imam Ghazali, with great philosophical acumen, locates the

presuppositions which made the Muslim philosophers deviate from

standard Qurānic beliefs and reconstructs them according to Islamic

teachings. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, a great Muslim thinker also enters in the

discussion, but is entangled in un-Qurānic notions like ‘absolute and fixed

privation’ and principles like ‘Inconceivability of Inaction of Divine

23

Attributes.’ Etc. Controversy between these thinkers is not merely an

intellectual heritage of Muslim history, but also has intimate relevance

with our own times. This provides us with a criterion to examine our own

approach towards the relationship between religion and the philosophical

and scientific world views of our times. Naturalism of Sir Seyyed Ahmed

Khan, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam by Dr. Muhammad

Iqbal, and sociological interpretation of Islam and especially presentation

of Tauhid as World View by Dr. Ali Shari’ati in the recent past and similar

attempts of various contemporary scholars need to be seen and evaluated

in this perspective.

--------------------------------

Key Features:

Approach: Author believes that the Qurān is authoritative, it is perspicuous, internally self-consistent and self-sufficient and wish to show that such position on the Qurān is the only way to resolve the difficulties of Muslim theology, philosophy and mysticism.

The most distinctive feature of this book is that on each matter it argues solely on the basis of the Qurān, and argues satisfactorily.

No reference of any tradition is given in this book. Everything is discussed on the authority of the Qurān.

Six antinomies which are identified by various Muslim theologians as well as Orientalists with reference to Islamic teachings and human freedom are analyzed, their contradictions are highlighted and correct view on the authority of the Qurān is reconstructed and it is argued that the basic teachings of Islam were never predestinarian in nature.

The Qurān is al-Ḥaqq (the standard of truth). This book will help the readers learn to substantiate their views and judge other’s on the authority of the Qurān.

This book reconstructs Qurānic concepts of Omniscience, Omnipotence, Allah’s Pleasure (Raḍa) and Allah’s Will (mashiyat), Ontology, Innovation (Bid’at__principle for relating man-made knowledge with revealed knowledge), Appointed Term (ajl e mussamma), Free Will, State and Statecraft, Preserved Tablet, Hidden Book and many other concepts false understanding of which have entered Muslim belief system and are coloring the understanding of many other ideas since centuries.

24

Competition/Related titles

1. Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick, The Vision of Islam, I.B. Tauris, 1994,

2. Tariq Ramaḍan, Radical Reform : Islamic Ethics and Liberation, 2009; and

The Quest for Meaning: Developing A Philosophy of Pluralism,

2010, PENGUINE

Islam, the West and Challenges of Modernity, Consortium Book

Sales & Dist (2011)

3. Suha Taji Farouki (Edt), Modern Muslim Intellectuals And The Qurān, 2004, Oxford University Press

4. Abdullah Saeed, The Qur’an: An Introduction, Routledge, 2008

5. Negotiating The Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multicultural Society, 2006, ANU E

6. Muhammad Fatehullah Gülen (2005) The Essentials of the Islamic Faith.

7. John Renard, Knowledge of God in Classical Sufism (Foundations of Islamic Mystical Theology), (2004) Paulist Press

8. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ideals and Realities of Islam,

9. Frithjof Schuon, Understanding Islam’

10. Nader Hashemi, Islam Secularism and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies, Oxford University Press, 2009

11. Harry Austryn Wolfson, The philosophy of the Kalam (Structure and Growth of Philosophic Systems from Plato to Spinoza, Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1976.

12. Robert R. Reily, The Closing of the Muslim Mind (How the Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crises), Wilmington, Delware: ISI Books, 2010.

25

13. Ziauddin Sardar, Reading the Qurān (The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Isalm), London: Hurst Company, 2011.

How the present book differs from those

mentioned above

There is no book in the market which so strongly argues on the

authority of the Qurān that the basic teachings of Islam had never been

predestinarian in nature.

The author is yet to see any other book which argues solely on the basis

of the Qurān and argues so satisfactorily.

The clarity of thought found in this book on issues relating Muslim

theology, philosophy, and tasawuf is unmatchable.

This book never misses to reconstruct a concept which it points out to

be incorrect.

The articles in this book present a modest attempt of the author to

share enlightenment with the readers, attained to him in his quest for

truth.

H. A. Wolfson formulates five antinomies of human freedom with

reference to various Islamic concepts in his The Philosophy of the

Kalam. The author has not seen any book which examines and replies

these antinomies.

A great majority of Muslims have been believing spirituality/Sufism

since centuries to be in accordance with the spirit of Islamic teachings

but they are unable to very precisely pin point where does lie its origin

in the Qurān. An article “The Way of Shahideen” contained in this book

first time in the history of Muslim thought traces the origin of Sufism in

the term ‘shahid’ and explains its development into a discipline.

Each article in this book is original and creative attempt on that very

topic.

The book rejects the concept of ‘Islamic State’ as un-Qurānic and

develops a thesis for the separation of State and Religion.

Since centuries the Muslims have been condemning the concept of

‘Bid’at’ (innovation) in their Friday sermons. This book presents ‘Bid’at’

as the Qurānic basis of Ijtihad for relating man-made knowledge with

Islamic teachings. Thus tries to establish this abandoned principle on

sound Qurānic footings.

26

CURRICULAM VITAE

DR. ABDUL HAFEEZ FĀZLI

Professor on Contract Department of Philosophy,

University of the Punjab, Lahore, PAKISTAN.

Ex-Professor/Chairman

Department of Philosophy, University of the Punjab, Lahore, PAKISTAN.

Ex-President Pakistan Philosophical Congress

Chief Editor Al-Hikmat――a research journal of the Department of

Philosophy, Punjab University Lahore Pakistan.

Date of birth: November 1st, 1952

Date of retirement: 31st October 2012

Correspondence Address(es)

Work:

Department of Philosophy,

University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Cell Phone +92-300-4550698

Home Phone +92-42-35952810

Office Phone +92-42-99230884

Email [email protected],

QUALIFICATION: Did his M. A. in PHILOSOPHY from the

Department of Philosophy, University of the Punjab, Lahore in 1980.

Ph.D. was awarded by the University of the Punjab Lahore in 2001.

Topic of Ph.D. research was:

“DIVINE OMNISCIENCE AND HUMAN FREEDOM”

(With Special Reference to Iqbal)

Books Published

1. Published a book in Urdu on the Instituition of Federal

Ombudsman in Pakistan in 1991, preparing a case for the

27

establishment of Provincial Ombudsman Institutions. And within four years these institutions were established.

2. Working on the English Translation of Tafseer-e Fāzli as

Editor/Translator. Three out of seven volumes have been published by Fāzli Foundation Lahore, 4th volume is in Press, work on the 5th is in progress.

3. Has published more than twenty articles in various national and

international journals the detail of which is given above. A few of these articles are in Urdu.

Other Writing Projects

The author plans to publish

(i) His Ph.D. research dissertation after this book is published.

(ii) Writing a book on Wahdat-e Shahideen.

(iii) Editing his Urdu research articles for publishing into a book.

REVIEWERS

(i) It will be appreciated if the book proposal is reviewed by some renowned Professor of Muslim Philosophy teaching in some

British or American University.

(ii) The proposal should not be sent to religious scholar or professors of religious studies but to Philosopher/s. A professor of religious

studies or a religious scholar, I am afraid, may label me blasphemous at many points.

(iii) It should also not be sent to anyone relating to Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s School for example Chittick.

(iv) In my view, the following can be the best reviewers for this kind of work:

1. Dr. Devin J. Stewart, Winship Scholar of Islamic Studies,

Associate Professor of the Department of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies, Emory University Atlanta, [email protected] .

28

He has gone through some of articles and has highly appreciated my work.

2. Dr. Munawwar Ahmed Anees, [email protected], (Cell Number 0307-6868605) Director Global Dialogue and Director Islamic Banking, University of Management and Technology (UMT) Lahore Pakistan. He has gone through some of my work and has highly appreciated its approach and content.

i Cf. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, (reprint 1986), The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, ed. and ann.

M. Saeed Sheikh, Pakistan: Institute of Islamic Culture, chapters 3-4; see also, Abdul Hafeez Fāzli, Iqbal’s

view of Omniscience and human freedom. The Muslim World, 2005, 95(1), pp. 125-145.

ii Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious in Islam, ed. and ann, M. Saeed Sheikh (Lahore:

Institute of Islamic Culture, reprint 1986), 46

Notes

* Published in, Hamdard Islamicus, XXV (I), 2002.

1) Translation of the verses quoted in the article has not been taken from any specific translation of the Qurān. We have

consulted several translations but quoted only that which was near to our understanding. We have given our arguments,

wherever necessary, for adopting a specific translation.

2) Since the discussions in this article revolve around the Qurānic concept of God, so we have preferred to use the word

‘Allah’ to stress this fact.

References

iii W. C. Klein, The Elucidation of Islam’s Foundation , Eng. trans. of Abu al Hasan Al-Ash‘ari’s, Al-Ibāna ‘An

Uṣul Ad-Diyānah, New Heaven: American Oriental Society, 1940. Antinomy concerning inexorability of the

Appointed Term, Antinomy concerning Provision of Sustenance, Antinomy with reference to the verse s of the

Quran etc. are some other antinomies formulated in this book.

Notes: 1) The translation of the verses quoted in the article has mostly been taken from Marmaduke

Pickthall’s explanatory translation Meaning of the Glorious Qurān but whenever we have quoted from some

other translation finding it more near to our understanding we have given its reference.

2) Since the discussions in this article revolve around the Qurānic concept of God, we have preferred to use the

word ‘Allah’ to stress this fact.

3) Verses of chapter 111 of the Qurān also contain condemnation of Abu Lahb’s wife but only Abu Lahb is

alluded to by name. Since in the dilemma reference is made only to Abu Lahb by name so we have also not

made any reference to Abu Lahb’s wife. It is evident, however, that whatever has been said of Abu Lahb stands

true of his wife.

References

iv Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam, Harvard University Press, 1976, p. 734

v Cf., Ibid., p. 613. These two were Nazzām and Mu‘ammar who believed in laws of nature and secondary

causes. For details see Ibid., p.559.

vi Ibid., pp. 660 and 663. Other four antinomies relate to the problem of free will and the appointed term (Ajal

Mussamma), the problem of free will and Allah’s Fore-Knowledge, the problem of free will and Allah’s Power,

and the problem of free will and preordained sustenance. Antinomies concerning the Appointed Term, and

concerning the Provision of Sustinance have been stated by al-Asha’ri in his Ibana. Ref. Walter C. Klein, tr. and

nn., The Elucidation of Islam’s Foundation, (trans. of al-Ibana an Usula ad Diyanah, by al-Ash‘ari) New

Haven: American Oriental Society, 1940, pp.115-119. Wolfson cites as footnote that he states the antinomy in

question with reference to discussions in Kitab Makālāt al-Islāmiyīn of al-Ash’arí, Fark bain al-Firak of

Baghdādi, and Milal of Shahrastani.

ssssvii “These two philosophers were Aristotelian. They were also Neoplatonists who had formulated two closely related but

quite distinct emanative schemes. There are, moreover, differences between these two thinkers, not only in their emanative

schemes, but also in their theories of the soul, epistemologies, and eschatologies. At the same time, however, there is overlap

29

in their ideas, so that many of al-Ghazali's criticisms apply to both.” Michael E. Marmura (tr.), “Translater’s Introduction” in

The Incoherence of the Philosophers, (Eng. tr. of Ghazali’s Tahafut al-Falasfa), Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University

Pmsi, 2000, p.xix