This article was downloaded by: [109.175.100.

227]
On: 15 February 2015, At: 11:40
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cicm20

Islamic theology between tradition and

challenge of modernity
Nedad Grabus

Faculty of Islamic Studies , Sarajevo , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Published online: 22 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Nedad Grabus (2012) Islamic theology between tradition and
challenge of modernity, Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations, 23:3, 267-277, DOI:
10.1080/09596410.2012.686263
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2012.686263

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations

Vol. 23, No. 3, July 2012, 267277

Islamic theology between tradition and challenge of modernity1

Nedad Grabus*

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

Faculty of Islamic Studies, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

A number of different approaches to the interpretation of cognition have always existed side
by side within Islam, from those relying mainly on the basic sources the Quran and the
Sunna to those that attempt to clarify the issue of cognition largely by way of rational
and logical argumentation, as is the case with philosophical texts. For this reason it is
important to consider the literature that emerged in the classical period, which is still
being brought to light and which this article endeavours to make more accessible to
present-day readers.
The debate that took place between the main theological schools of the Mutazils,
Mturds and Ashars is of great significance for present-day readers, since it provides an
insight into the emergence and development of the substantive contents of systematic
belief in Islam. From the late eleventh to the early twentieth century, Mutazilism was seen
as anathema in most of the Muslim world, and only the Mturds and the Ashars were
accepted among Sunnis. At the end of the nineteenth century, a critical traditionalist
movement appeared, led by Muh.ammad Abduh (d. 1905) and Sayyid Ah.mad Khn (d.
1898). Many scholars have associated the interest in Mutazil learning in the early
twentieth century with the renaissance (nahd.a) in Arabic literature in the late nineteenth
century. The nahd.a emerged in response to the challenges of Western civilizations
irresistible cultural penetration into the Arab world, which was frozen in conservatism.
Muh.ammad Abduh, aware of the changes that had occurred in the Muslim world as a
result of Western colonialism, was trying to respond to the challenges with which social
and political change confronted Muslims, and in the ideas he articulated he revived some
Mutazil theses.
Keywords: Cognition; rationalism; traditionalism; modernism; ideology

As a rule, research in the area of acquisition of knowledge and possibilities of cognition within
Western European thought and the history of philosophy is contextualized in and dated to
Antiquity. It is a problem that the contribution to the development and formulation of
philosophy provided by Muslim thinkers has usually been neglected or underrated. Wilhelm
Windelband expressed this by maintaining that in European thought there persists a most
regrettable lack of knowledge of Arab and Jewish philosophy and, consistent with that, lack
of awareness of its influence upon the stream of Western thought at particular points. He is
of the opinion that this could possibly constitute the most sensitive gap in exploring the
origins of philosophy. Knowledge of religious substance and issues dealt with by the most
prominent Islamic theological schools in the domain of the theory of cognition is even more
problematically absent and inadequately covered within Western European thought
(Windelband 1988, 1001). It is particularly interesting that only literature from the domain
of Islamic philosophy is referred to, while the major works of ilm al-kalm and aqid
(theology) have generally been neglected.

*Email: ngrabus@gmail.com
ISSN 0959-6410 print/ISSN 1469-9311 online
2012 University of Birmingham
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2012.686263
http://www.tandfonline.com

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

268 N. Grabus
We encounter several problems when trying to summarize the development and establishment
of the essential aspects of aqid. The first serious problem is the multiplicity and diversity of
views regarding this issue, not only between the mainstream interpreters of aqid (the
Mutazila, Ashar, Mturd and Salaf schools), but also among the followers and the
promoters of the views of these schools. The second problem is of a more technical nature,
namely the fact that no comprehensive and generally accepted assessment of the importance of
the theory of knowledge in aqid and particularly in kalm (speculative theology) yet exists.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to correctly understand this matter without at least a summary
review of directly related works and topics, which means it is necessary to become acquainted
with the general characteristics and individual features of the most prominent authors of
aqid literature, and their exposition of the theory of cognition.
Every doctrine employs its own arsenal of terms. In kalm it very important to use the terms
proof (dall), reasoning (naz.ar), knowledge (ilm) and presumption (z.ann). There is no particular
need to insist that understanding the concepts expressed by these terms is vital for the
understanding of any epistemological form in kalm. A holistic insight into this discipline and
consideration of its epistemological form is certainly more important than understanding the
terms in themselves. Aqid covers not only strictly substantive theological issues, but also
those that belong to the epistemological and methodological field. In any serious study of
issues in the field of Islamic belief, particularly theological issues, both these elements should
be taken into account for a correct understanding of the theoretical aspect of theology.
Synthetic aqid-philosophical teachings on cognition in Islamic theology as a
forerunner of modern thought
Several hundred years experience of searching for answers to epistemological and
methodological questions in the domain of ilm al-kalm have resulted in the creation of
systematized works encompassing all the concepts expressed to date. Specifically, works by
Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz (1984, 5666), Adud al-Dn Abd al-Rah.mn al-j (n.d. 714) and Sad
al-Dn al-Taftazn (1989, 187204) feature considerably more articulate and systemized
descriptions of the issues of ilm (knowledge) and marifa (cognition).
Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz2 endeavoured to master and reconcile various forms of thought in
interpreting the fundamental principles of Islam. His work Al-muh.as.s.al3 is of particular
importance for the topic of cognition, since he did not simply try to list the teachings, but
rather endeavoured to show what they had in common. Naturally, he restricted himself to the
field of kalm without delving into speculative and esoteric philosophy and wisdom,
remaining within the scope of what could be treated through reason. In the teaching of kalm
in al-Rzs work, the political and dogmatic problems were already eliminated. Due to
political influence of the established authorities, earlier authors did not dare to rely on logical
and philosophical arguments in their interpretation of kalm. A dialectic approach became an
integral part of methodology of writing. Introductions into these works were much more
consistent than the earlier works in this area. Nevertheless, the apologetic character of these
works continues to be noticeable in prolonged digressions where the authorities on the subject
defend the positions of Ahl al-Sunna. It seems that in these works it is exceptionally important
to prove the value of reasoning (naz.ar), knowledge and cognition.
In the introductory part of Al-muh.as.s.al, al-Rz acquaints us with the fundamentals of
kalm. He believes that kalm rests on four foundations. The first consists of the first
principles, principationes (Al-muqaddima al-l: f al-ulm al-awwaliyya), followed by
the process and definition of reasoning (F ah.km al-naz.ar, tarf al-naz.ar). The second
foundation deals with the question of Being and its division according to the mutakallimn

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 269

(Taqsm al-malmt, taqsm al-mawjdt al ray al-mutakallimn). The third foundation
addresses rational theology and reasoning about the Being, attributes, actions and names of
God (F al-ilhiyyt wa-al-naz.ar f al-dht wa-al-s.ift wa-al-afl wa-al-asm). The fourth
foundation contains issues based on transference and tradition of Revelation and the Sunna of
the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him (F al-samiyyt). Al-Rz is of the opinion that in
speaking about the methodology of ilm al-kalm one should keep in mind the preliminary
principle of science, i.e. when we recognize the reality we should make neither negative nor
positive judgements; this approach is a matter of conception, conceptio, idea (tas.awwur); if, on
the other hand, either a negative or a positive judgement is made, it then becomes a matter of
acknowledgement (aw nuh.kum alayh bi-nafy aw ithbt wa-huwa al-tas.dq) (Razi, 1984,
12041). He very articulately offers a thesis that conceptual knowledge can be defined as quite
clear and understandable in itself. He further considers that any matter in relation to which we
possess no knowledge whatsoever may become known to us only by way of acquisition of
such knowledge. For this reason it is impossible for anyone except a messenger of God to
acquire knowledge through unveiling (li-anna m ad al-ilm yankashif ill bihi fa-yastah.l an
yakn kshifan). Al-Rz affirms this position, stating: I am of necessity aware of my
existence because I know that I exist (wa-li ann alam bi-al-d.arra kawn liman bi-wujd),
and conceptual knowledge is a part of that. Therefore, conceptual knowledge is of a manifest
nature. Al-Rz is likewise of the opinion that knowledge must necessarily be defined by
knowledge and further maintains that it is wrong to negate knowledge. Negation of knowledge
in itself means that knowledge as such exists (Rz 1984, 1445).
In arguing for the importance of the concepts of knowledge, presumption, rational
speculation and Sharia judgment (h.ukm shar), al-Rz believes that knowledge as such
exists and is necessary. He endeavours to present a summarized review of the theory of
knowledge. There are numerous categories of knowledge. For instance, there is knowledge
derived from sensuous perception and knowledge derived from feelings such as pleasure and
pain. There is knowledge acquired by way of intuition and knowledge acquired by rational
judgement. Again, there is knowledge derived from a combination of factors perceived by
the senses and the intellect. In addition, there are two types of such knowledge: one related
to tradition transmitted by a number of reliable sources (mutawtirt), relying upon the
interconnection of sama and aql (tradition and intellect); and the other based on experience
and cognitive intuition (mujarrabt and h.adasiyyt) relying upon the interconnection
of reason and the other five external senses. Besides this type of knowledge, there are
also blind conviction (itiqd muqallid), ignorance, doubt, presumption, assessment and
conjecture (wahm).
The scholar al-j4 collected and synthesized the most prominent views held on the
definition of ilm in classical aqid literature; his work Al-mawqif f ilm al-kalm
represents one of the most significant compendia of aqid (Islamic theology) teachings,
covering the major issues discussed over the seven centuries history of the subject. This is a
thoroughly systematic and, considering the huge amount of material accumulated over time,
extraordinarily concise work. Issues and topics are treated and divided in accordance with
the best philosophical forms of thinking. The work is primarily concerned with issues that
concern the theory of cognition and knowledge, and aims to indicate the groundedness of
religious convictions (aqid dniyya) by way of argumentation and elimination of doubts
(yurd al-h.ujaj wa-daf al-shubah). For al-j, aqid without practical manifestations of
religion are no more than empty ideas (wa-al-murd bi-al-aqid m yaqs.ud bihi nafs alitiqd dn al-amal). Al-j points out that Man is endowed with innate intellect (aql
gharz), essential knowledge (ilm d.arr) and the capacity for speculation and deductive
reasoning or inference illatio (naz.ar, istidll). His main purpose is to contemplate Gods

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

270 N. Grabus
creation in order to acquire knowledge of existence and of the Eternal Creator. He believes that
ilm al-kalm is the most valuable science Man can study.
Al-js first stance (mawqif) in Al-mawqif addresses the question of the origin of knowledge.
The philosophical tradition that had already been adopted by scholars requires him to begin with a
description of the discipline on the basis of categories that may also be applied to other scientific
disciplines, such as definition, subject, application, benefit, type, problems and denomination
(designation). This is followed by the stances concerning knowledge. In the approach to the
definition of knowledge, al-j sets out three methodological approaches taken by philosophers.
The first approach is that taken by Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz, who, according to al-j, considered
that the acquisition of knowledge was necessary for two reasons. First, it is essential that
everyone should be aware of his/her own existence (inna ilm kull ah.ad bi-wujdih d.arr).
This is a very special kind of knowledge. Second, acquired knowledge does not exist without
effort and is acquired in a particular way through learning and has nothing to do with
conjecture. Learning, when we have no knowledge about something at a theoretical level,
takes place by way of presumption and preconception about its essence. There is thus a
difference between acquisition, presumption and preconception of knowledge. The second
approach characterized by al-j is that taken by Imam al-H.aramayn al-Juwayn5 and alGhazl (j n.d., 1219), who considered defining knowledge as unnecessary (innahu laysa
d.arriyyan) (ibid., 9) and difficult. The method of attaining cognition is through division
(divisio) and by analogy (ql wa-t.arq marifatih al-qisma wa-al-mithl). Consequently they
believed that the mode of cognition is not the same for everybody, since knowledge is
obtained using various disciplines and in a variety of ways. The third and final approach to
theoretical knowledge identified by al-j includes the views of certain proponents of
Mutazilism, its opponents such as Ab Bakr al-Bqilln and al-Rz, and philosophers, and
aims to prove that knowledge is not the same as simple conviction. These definitions are
discussed in the context of al-Bqillns polemic against the proponents of Mutazilism. Al-j
gives the following definition of knowledge: This is an attribute whose existence requires
distinction between several meanings that do not tolerate contradiction (innahu s.ifa tjab limah.allih tamyzan bayn al-man l yah.tamil al-taqayyud.) (ibid., 11).
Al-j divides the resulting knowledge into what is essential and what is acquired (al-ilm alh.dith yanqasim il d.arr wa-muktasab). However, where the method of achievement of proper
reasoning is in question, we should keep in mind that a perception may be either an individual
precognition or an assertion (wa-lim kna al-idrk imm tas.awwuran aw tas.dqan); if it
represents a method of conception, it is called a cognition (marif), and if it is in the form of
an assertion, it is called a proof (dall), which encompasses both presumptive and categorical
proof. Al-j maintains that the mutakallimn considered knowledge to be a link between the
knower and the thing revealed through argument, whereas philosophers believed knowledge to
be presumptive existence (wujd dhihn) (ibid., 1401), and that it is to be judged as
intelligibilities (maqlt), a thesis many mutakallimn opposed. Knowledge is further divided
into disjunctive (tafs.l) and universal (ijml). Al-js work contains a most detailed depiction
of ideas, interpretations, views and methodological forms of knowledge, such that it may be
regarded as an encyclopaedic overview of material collected in this field up to that time. With
al-js work, the idea of discriminating between the problem of defining and the problem of
proving and presenting evidence progressively crystallized. The aim of ilm al-kalm is to
establish and substantiate essential knowledge (ulm d.arriyya). The whole of essential
knowledge can be divided into instinctive (natural) knowledge (wijdniyyt), which is of
limited scope and consequence, knowledge acquired by way of sensuous perception (h.issiyyt)
and knowledge acquired through intuition (badhiyyt). Al-j maintains that there are four
differing views regarding the source of knowledge obtained by means of the senses and

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 271

intuition. Most of them recognize both of the above sources of knowledge. He indicates that the
group that rejected the senses as a source of knowledge is that led by Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy and
Galen. The others reject intuition as a source of knowledge. Some of them, such as the sophists
(l-adriyya), repudiate both sources and everything else that may lead toward knowledge. Like
the rest of the scholars (ulam), al-j goes on to speak about rational reasoning in order to
attain a desired aim. Reasoning is defined as being either certain or improper. Natural, certain
reasoning leads toward knowledge. Similar to the earlier ulam, al-j refers to the example of
the followers of Shaivism, a branch of Hinduism in the Middle Ages, who rejected the
possibility that knowledge may be obtained by way of reasoning. The geometricians
(muhandisn) are of the opinion that reasoning may only lead to the acquisition of scientific
mathematical knowledge (handasiyyt), not metaphysical knowledge (see Rosenthal 1970,
230). They are convinced that it is only in this sense that it is possible to speak of
presumptions, preconceptions and relative thought. Al-j further states that even the malh.ida
(some think that this applies to the Ismaili Shia) reject speculation, which may lead to
knowledge of God, without an imam, a guide or a teacher. He also discusses the methods by
which knowledge can be achieved by reasoning, and the basic criteria for using speculation.
According to al-j, there is a general consensus that using rational speculation to obtain
knowledge of God (marifat Allh) is the duty of every Muslim, whether that be by using the
intellect, as the Mutazilis and al-Mturd believed, or by following tradition (sam), as al-j
himself maintained. In fact, he considers this to be the primary obligation of every mature
Muslim. According to al-j, analogous reasoning is a fruitful method of rational speculation,
and he refers briefly to using traditional evidence in the acquisition of knowledge.
Thus it is evident that the authors of kalm take over the interpretation of this matter from
philosophy, as previously written by Ibn Sn. All knowledge or cognition is either conceptual
(tas.awwur) or an assertion, which means presenting evidence about something by logical
argumentation (tas.dq). Conceptual knowledge is primary knowledge that can be acquired by
defining. On the other hand, correspondent knowledge is that gained by presenting
conclusions. An example of this is the assertion to the effect that the created world has a
beginning. The above understanding is very close to the distinction, specific to modern logic,
between meaning and true substance/meaning. On the basis of al-js work it is understood
that aqid is based on knowledge, while knowledge is adapted to aqid.
Following the same line as al-j, al-Taftazn6 likewise discusses the definition of knowledge
in his work Sharh. al-maqs.id. He is of the opinion that conceptual knowledge is necessary, since
it is acquired, and we need it to help us learn the unknown. Without conceptual knowledge, the
process of learning would require a prolonged period of time. That is why any beings awareness
of its existence is directly obvious. This awareness is to be followed by general knowledge.
Al-Taftazn contested the notion of conceptual knowledge and its acquisition.7
Here a minor parenthesis may help us present a comparison between the understandings of
cognition in Western and Islamic thought. There is a major difference of approach to this
matter between, on the one hand, the ulam who were active in the milieu of Islamic culture
and civilization in the Middle Ages and, on the other, Christian theologians of the time, to say
nothing of modern Western philosophy. As a result, every researcher is torn between two
trends in the theory of cognition: the rational and empirical approach of the West, and
mainstream Islamic thought, which deals with this topic through tradition (transmission
naql) and intellect ratio (aql), trying to work out the linkages between the two and/or to
attain a synthesis, since the absolutization of the mind and the subject has never taken place in
Islamic thought. This is why no radical interpretations emerged in Islamic thought that granted
reason priority over revelation, in contrast to European thought, where such interpretations did
accord a primary and absolute role to reason and the subject. Perhaps this is why the theory of

272 N. Grabus

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

cognition in the form developed within aqid has remained on the margins and has been
inadequately presented to the modern reading public and scientifically trained individuals.
Islamic theological texts in a modern context
In order to understand a given topic we should acknowledge the disputes that have marked
Islamic thought in the twentieth century and led both to the further development of rational
ideas within Islamic thought and to the emergence of ideas that have promoted ideological
theological doctrine. Through these ideas, Islam has been deprived of dynamism and the
ability to adjust to new circumstances, ignoring its tenets and principles of accommodation and
affirming lines of thought that simplify and reduce its teachings and theological interpretation
to mere repetition and the proclamation of formalized attitudes and theological theses on
substantive issues. Some examples follow here of the theological ideas of the most prominent
authors representing this trend.
In his article The awakening of rationalism (Mutazilism) in Islam, written in 1957 (see
Martin et al. 2003, 128), Rudi Caspar ironically noted the changing role of that school of
thought. Mutazil schools developed in the eighth and ninth centuries to defend Islam against
its non-Muslim enemies and invaders. Later, the Mutazila would be defeated by the rising tide
of traditionalism, which accused them of doctrinal innovation (bida), and even unbelief (kufr).
For almost two centuries, the Mutazila competed for supremacy with the traditionalists,
represented by two new forms of thinking embodied in the Mturd and Ashar schools of
thought. From the late eleventh to the early twentieth century, Mutazilism was seen as
anathema in most of the Muslim world, and only Mturd and Ashar teachings were
accepted in the Sunni part of the Muslim world. In Sunni learning, disputes between the
H.anbal traditionalists and the Ashars continued. At the end of the nineteenth century, a
critical surge in traditionalism took place. This movement was led by Muh.ammad Abduh
(d. 1905) and Sayyid Ah.mad Khn (d. 1898). Many authors, including Caspar, associated the
interest in Mutazila learning in the early twentieth century with the renaissance (nahd.a) in
Arabic literature in the late nineteenth century. The nahd.a emerged in response to the
challenges posed by the irresistible cultural penetration of Western civilization into the Arab
world, achieved by attacking traditional Islamic thinking, which was frozen in conservatism.
Muh.ammad Abduh was trying to respond to the social and political changes that had occurred
as a result of Western colonialism, which he saw as a threat to Muslim civilization, and in the
ideas he sought to articulate he revived some Mutazil theses.
Abduhs main thesis in his interpretation of classical Islamic texts was that Muslims would
not be able to resist modernity and the West until they acquired a modern education, including
in rational science. In his Al-risla al-Adudiyya, published in 1876, Abduh expressed his
inclination to Mutazil learning, and presented Mutazil ideas in his theological
commentary on the proposals of the Ashar theologian Adud al-Dn al-j. Abduh later
faced strong opposition while trying to reform the teaching curriculum at Al-Azhar
University. Several authors have noted that Abduh believed that, if al-Azhar underwent
reform, Islam would be reformed too. Abduh learned the primary emphases of early
Islamic rational theological thinking from Jaml al-Dn al-Afghn (18771924), since
these ideas were not part of the curriculum of either al-Azhar or any other universities.
Abduh had to go into exile, not because of his students, who are attended his lectures in
large numbers, but because of the traditionalist ulam, who were then teaching in the
faculty and who were against any kind of change in the curriculum. The specific reason
for his exile was a lecture that focused on rational interpretation of the aqid and
the methodological approach to interpretation set out in Al-aqid al-Nasafiyya with

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 273

al-Taftazns commentary (al-Nasaf is a Mturd theologian [mutakallim] d. 1389). The
work follows some lines of Mutazil thought and is highly critical of Ashar doctrine. One
of the older traditionalists at al-Azhar, Professor Shaykh Ulaysh, publicly denounced
Abduh, asking him, Did you abandon Ashaar aqda form in order to follow the
Mutazila? Abduh replied, If I gave up blind imitation (taqld) of Asharism, why I should
blindly imitate the Mutazila? (Martin et al. 2003, 45).
After that, Abduh spent 1885 in Beirut. His lectures on kalm were published under the title
Rislat al-tawh.d, in which he demonstrated with examples the need to repeatedly redefine
epistemological procedure in the discipline of theology. The special importance of Abduhs
work lies in his understanding of the conflict between religion and reason that had been raging
in Europe since the publication of Darwins On the origin of species in 1859. Abduh
advocated the rational construction and interpretation of text as an integrated message, not just
focusing on isolated parts of verses with narrow, specific meanings. In an important passage in
the Risla, Abduh writes that reason (aql) should not be undervalued when dealing with
religion (dn), since reason leads people to pursue and accept what is proclaimed in religion.
By accepting traditional theological interpretation as a legitimate alternative to the majority of
Muslim religious and educational institutions, Abduh endeavoured to articulate an approach to
open dialogue between theological opponents. Since the debate that developed between the
postmodernists and the Islamists, along with the imposition of solutions from outside by the
Orientalists, who were believed to rummage in Islamic history and constantly reconstruct the
Muslim past, internal dialogue and debate among Muslims regarding the nature of theological
issues were destabilized, while the postmodernistic theological discourse acquired a global
character. The contemporary Indonesian thinker and influential professor, Harun Nasution,
perhaps exaggerated in his assessment that Abduh was a Mutazil, not an Ashar thinker.
Nasutions opinion is based on the importance that Abduh gave to rational thinking and the
presentation of evidence (adilla), even where the sacred text was involved. Abduhs Rislat
al-tawh.d does in many passages reflect the rationalism of the early Mutazila, but other
passages reflect the Puritanism of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Abd al-Wahhb. In fact, Abduh
takes in both lines of thought, which is a response to the dichotomy in the history of Western
theological thinking and the differences between liberalism and fundamentalism in the early
years of the twentieth century. If we consider Abduhs rationalism from the perspective of
Western thought, we see that he seeks to come close to the religious liberalism and social
progressivism that characterized European thinking from the late nineteenth century till the
first half of the twentieth. When it comes to interpreting Abduhs theory of knowledge and
cognition, as well as some other aspects of his intellectual work, it must be stressed that many
authors expressed the opinion that he was merely reiterating the medieval debate on aqid.
According to Ahmad S. Moussali (1993, 56), however, this does not mean that Abduhs
contribution to the readjustment of the problems of aqid is insignificant, since he tried to
reconcile the rational study of aqid with, or, in a certain sense, to restore it to, traditionalist
educational institutions and circles, at the same time linking these issues to the interpretation
of modern science.
Most scholars who have worked in the second half of the twentieth century (both modernists
and postmodernists) do not identify themselves with the Mutazila as the early rationalists of
Islam, or as the circle that first seriously raised the issue of knowledge and theories of
cognition in aqda. Perhaps one could say that, for them, Mutazilism and free thinking
represented the ability of Muslims to face change, and external influences and challenges, in a
way that could be identified as Islamic. However, their selective use of certain aspects of
Mutazil doctrine and intellectual theses, as well as historical elements in the debate, is not
sufficient for them to be characterized as Mutazils. We should bear in mind the growing

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

274 N. Grabus
number of non-European thinkers, among them many Muslims, who are critical of Eurocentrism.
Theories developed by Muslim thinkers in the postmodern era have been recognized as
demolishing the control of Euro-American scientists over the Islamic textual tradition. Among
the most prominent thinkers to have sought to re-articulate the understanding of Islamic
classical texts is Fazlur Rahman (191988). In his book Islam, 1979, he emphasized the
importance of the Mutazil call for speculative reasoning and their insistence on reason in
theology. Fazlur Rahman admitted that Mutazil thinkers succeeded in saving the
Muslim umma from what Friedrich Schleiermacher (17681834), in a similar context for
nineteenth-century Christianity, called cultural contempt (Windelband 1988, 34). He further
stressed that they conducted a ruthless, but nevertheless successful, struggle to defend Islam
against attacks from Manichaeism, Gnosticism and materialism. In so doing, however, they
unintentionally built the first systematic school of thought regarding the principles of belief in
Islam. According to Fazlur Rahman, even though the Mutazila, as constructive theologians,
made a significant contribution to defending Islam from external attacks, they were not able to
build a doctrinal system that would satisfy emotional orthodox Islamic piety. He ironically
concluded that, while they were opponents of H.anbal traditionalism, they also caused the
development of traditionalist extremism. He believed that the extreme rationalism of the
Mutazila was responsible, in a sense, for the extreme rigidity and fideism of the reaction of
orthodox Islam. Fazlur Rahman also believed that orthodox Islam, as he called it, eventually
went to the opposite extreme to Mutazil rationalism, and that Islam took a path where its
dynamic formulations were only partially and indirectly related to the living realities of faith
(Rahman 1979, 175). Fazlur Rahman advocated overcoming the emphasis on historical,
linguistic and excessively traditionalist approaches to belief.
An important role in post-structuralist interpretations of Islam and the quest for
epistemological method has likewise been played by Professor Mohammed Arkoun, who seeks
to make Islam relevant in the modern world, encouraging self-criticism and the restoration of
proper theological rationalism in the interpretation of the fundamental tenets of faith. Unlike
Fazlur Rahman, who is a modernist, though he criticized modernist thinking, Arkoun is a
postmodernist. He was inspired by the French school of post-structural deconstruction, which,
like traditional Islam, suffered from the post-Enlightenment criticism of modernity. Islamic
sectarian discourses usually considered post-Enlightenment secularism and modernity as
Western diseases that stemmed from colonialism, infecting and weakening the great Islamic
civilization. Even according to H.asan H.anaf, a prominent modern Egyptian thinker and a very
influential intellectual, postmodern criticism is regarded as being in opposition to Islamic
rationalism. Arkouns opinion is interesting as it is not primarily critical of the traditional
religious arguments in the context of modernity and Islam, but rather exercises postmodern
critical theory. He advocates that the scriptures both the Quran and the Bible should be
open to historical, sociological and anthropological analysis (Martin et al. 2003, 203),
although he does not want to challenge all the sacred and transcendent interpretations
produced by the traditional theological reasoning, believing that such an analysis would
demystify the phenomenon of the Books (ibid., 205). Thus he does not look for the
application of the biblical criticism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which
destroyed the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity. He explains the concept of
postmodernist rationalism as follows:
The modern rationality re-establishes the psychological and cultural function of myth, developing a
global strategy of knowledge in which the rational and the imaginary constantly influence each
other, to produce individual and historical existence. We have to give up the dual framework of
knowledge that juxtaposes reason and imagination, history and myth, truth and falsehood, good and
evil, reason and faith. We have to postulate the plurality, change and welcome form of rationality

Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 275

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

that is consistent with the psychological functioning of the Quran positioned in the heart, and what
contemporary anthropology seeks to re-introduce under the label of imaginary. (Ibid., 206)

Arkoun considers that not only the Quran itself, but also the great classical commentators such as
al-T.abar (d. 310/922) and Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz should be re-analysed using modern linguistic
textual and interpretative theory. Arkoun argues that, in the modern age, it is not possible to
establish a genuine epistemological process based on the historical, theological and linguistic
assumptions of traditional interpretations, because that would lead to confusion regarding the
reliability of those teachings. It is therefore the duty of Muslim intellectuals today to undertake
criticism of traditional Islamic thinking, because it confuses historically-based interpretations
with the contents of divine revelation. While many traditionalist Muslims write of the
Islamization of the social sciences and other disciplines in modern secular universities,
Arkoun believes that Islamic habits of reasoning should be deconstructed and should prepare
the way for the opening up of sacred texts to modern historical and linguistic research. Arkoun
believes that, unless there is an attempt to confront traditional thinking with modern
approaches, standards of knowledge about Islam will continue to weaken both among the
traditional ulam and among the Islamists.
Continuity of struggle between traditionalism and rationalism
Mutazil rationalism and H.anbal traditionalism as competing and conflicting trends and patterns
of thought developed at the opposite ends of the Islamic spectrum, and tried to influence the
religious, intellectual and political centre. This conflict was somewhat stabilized, although not
resolved, in the tenth and eleventh centuries with the growing influence of the Shfi and
H.anbal madhhabs, and Ashar and Mturd kalm. In fact, theological and epistemological
conflict between rationalism and traditionalism was never finally resolved, even after the fall
of the Mutazila movement in the eleventh century. Because of centuries of decline and lack of
dynamic development and flow of ideas in the Muslim universities and centres of education,
as well as among the ulam in general, traditional patterns of thought prevailed. We have
already discussed the response to Abduhs attitudes in the interpretation of aqid a reaction
based on the conviction that aqid acquired a permanent and defined form and an integrated
system of doctrinal teachings as early as the first centuries of Islam. The ulam defended
faith and its tenets from external attacks and internal conflicts as well as from the sectarian
fragmentation of the whole body of Islamic teaching. The writings of authors who looked
critically at the Muslim past, especially Sayyid Qut.b (190666), reveal an effort to understand
Islam as aqda (conviction and belief) and as a living doctrine. For Qut.b, aqda represented a
revolutionary method with massive latent power to transform inactive people into devout,
committed and goal-oriented beings. For him, aqda itself possessed historical and transhistorical traits and capabilities. In this approach, Qut.b deviated completely from the
epistemological foundation of aqid, claiming that aqid constituted an ideology for the
masses, with the well-known slogan that Islam is/has the answer to all questions. According
to Qut.b, aqda is a life-driving force, the only latent force that a true Muslim in the twentieth
century should live for. He continually pointed out that Muslims everywhere, including in
Egypt, were in desperate need of a belief that would help them to consolidate their power.
They needed a unified ideology (aqda) to enable them to face life and its problems, an
ideology to give them power against external and internal enemies. Qut.b was extremely
critical of the Azhari ulam, but not in the same way as Abduh, who felt that the ulam
were burdened with historical patterns of thinking, blindly following and imitating classical
authority (taqld). Qut.b, on the other hand, accused the ulam of being associated with the
ruling elite, and of supporting a reactionary educational policy that failed to meet the

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

276 N. Grabus
requirements of modern times. In his view, the foundations of Islamic knowledge do not rely on
the interpretations and commentaries studied at al-Azhar; young scholars spend the best years of
their life in such studies, but when they graduate become victims of contradictory approaches and
barren controversies (Kari 2002, 209). Qut.b ignored the entire Muslim literary experience and
argued that the original sources of Islam could be found in the Quran and the Sunna of the
Prophet and his biography, which are alone sufficient to solve Muslims problems. Qutb can
be counted among the most prominent representatives of the ideological interpretation of
aqid, but at the same time he neglected and suppressed the epistemological process and
methods of interpretation of aqid, which are important for understanding the fundamental
tenets and principles of Islamic belief.
In this thematic review of classical Islamic theological texts in the field of Islamic cognition in
a modern context, we have tried to present the main trends in approaches to interpretation and the
main proponents of aqid that have influenced the development of this area of thought. There
have, of course, been tens of other Islamic scholars who have written on this theme, but those
referred to in the present article are key examples of stages in the overall development of
approaches to aqda.

Notes
1. An earlier version of this article was presented at the seminar Modern Islamic thought at the Faculty of
Islamic Studies in Sarajevo, 2425 May 2011.
2. Imam Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz was born in 543/1149 and died in 606/1209. Of the Islamic disciplines, he was
particularly interested in kalm, philosophy and tafsr. He also practised medicine, astrology, alchemy and
mineralogy (see Corbin 1978, 2512).
3. Ibn Khaldns first work was a commentary on al-Rzs Al-muh.as.s.al, entitled Lubb al-muh.as.s.al fi us.l
al-dn. It was written to answer certain questions in the domain of theology and philosophy (see Kari
2008, 11912).
4. Adud al-Dn Abd al-Rah.mn ibn Ah.mad al-j was born about 700/1300 and died in 756/1355. His
contribution to kalm and the theory of cognition lies in the fact that he liberated them from the
influence of ideology and in the fact that his work is systemized in a certain manner; since that very
period on, kalm has developed to become a scholastic and dogmatic theology taught in religious
schools (madrasas).
5. Ab al-Mal Abd al-Malik al-Juwayn, known as Imm al-H.aramayn (d. 478 AH) (see Juwayn 1995,
1525).
6. Sad al-Dn al-Taftazn was born in 722/1322 in Taftazan in Khorasan, in north-east Iran, and died in
Samarkand in 729/1390. He wrote in the fields of tafsr, fiqh, us.l, grammar, logic and ilm al-kalm.
7. Al-Taftazn interprets the teachings of his teacher al-j and those of mutakallimn, particularly Fakhr alDn al-Rz.

References
Corbin, Henry. 1978. Historija islamske filozofije [History of Islamic philosophy]. Trans. into Bosnian by
Nerkey Smailagi and Tarik Haveri. 2 vols. Sarajevo: Veselin Maslea.
j, Adud al-Dn Abd al-Rah.mn ibn Ah.mad al-.Al-mawqif f ilm al-kalm. Cairo: Maktabat al-Mutanabb.
Juwayn, Ab al-Mal Abd al-Malik al-. 1995. Kitb al-irshd il qawt.i al-adilla fi us.l al-itiqd. Beirut:
Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya.
Kari, Enes. 2002. Tumaenje Kurana i ideologije XX stoljea (Interpretation of the Quran and ideologies of
20th century). Sarajevo: Bemust.
Kari, Enes. 2008. Ibn Haldun ivot i djelo [Ibn Khaldn: life and work]. Sarajevo: El-Kalem.
Martin, Richard C., R.Woodward Mark, and S.Atmaja. Dwi. 2003. Defenders of reason in Islam:
Mutazilism from medieval school to modern symbol. Oxford: Oneworld.
Moussalli, Ahmed. 1993. Two tendencies in modern Islamic thought: modernism and fundamentalism.
Hamdard Islamicus, XVI(2), 5178.
Rahman, Fazlur. 1979. Islam. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 277

Downloaded by [109.175.100.227] at 11:40 15 February 2015

Rz, Fakhr al-Dn al-. 1984. Muh.as.s.al afkr al-mutaqaddimn wa-al-mutaakhkhirn min al-ulam wa-alh.ukam wa-al-mutakallimn. Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya.
Rosenthal, Franz. 1970. Knowledge triumphant: the concept of knowledge in medieval Islam. Leiden: Brill.
Taftazn, Masd ibn Umar ibn Abdallh Sad al-Dn al-. 1989. Sharh. al-maqs.id. Beirut: lam al-Kutub.
Windelband, Wilhelm. 1988. Povijest filozofije, sa dodatkom filozofija u 20. stoljecu od Heinza Heimsoetha
[History of philosophy, with addition of philosophies from 20th century by Heinz Heimsoeth]. Trans.
into Croatian by Nada ael, Danko Grli and Danilo Pejovi. 14th supplemented edn. Vol. 1. Zagreb:
Naprijed.