c,

.'
/
CABD
.
AL-HALIM MAHMUOiS CRITIQUE OF REASON

Ilj ACQUIRING THE .KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

ci

by
. ,.
!
1

C ABD AL-WAHIO AFOLABI' AHMAD AL-RUFAc

)
.
/
,/

----
, .'
, '.
A Thesis c

Presented to the Faculty pf Graduate Studies

and Re!ea~Ch, McGill University, Montreal,

1
1
/
in partial fulfillrnent of the require-

ments for the degree of

- Master of Arts

tnstitute of Islamic Studies

.
McGill University

Montreal

c~ ,
l

o
 ....
J
#

Mabm~d' s Cri tique of Reason

1 \

c.

,'
 .)
1
1
/ )
ABSTRACT

Author C Abd al-Wahid\ Afolabi Ahmad al-Rufcr

Title of Th~sis c Abd al-HalIm Mahmd's" Critique of'Reason

in Acquiring the Knowledge of God

")

Departmel'}t Islamic Stud~es, McGill University,

Montreal, Canada.

I?egree Master of Arts.

This thesis is an attempt ta analyze c Abd al-Halfm

1

Mahmd's critique of reason in, acquiring the knowledge of

God. c Abd al-HalIm Mahmd, the forrne~ Rector of al-Azhar

University in Cairo, was a SfI of al-ShadhilI brder. He

denies the need for involving senses and reason in the pro-

cess of how to know God. Justifying his view, he restricts

the function of both induction and deduction to the study

of physical objects which, according to hJ.rn, have no rela-

tionshJ.p with metaphysics. To him, the religious texts ;

\

cannot lead to the direct knowledge of God. l

1
Since the knowledge of God constitutes thfe central l
aspect of the Islamic faith or metaphyslcal studies, the

c author of this thesis considers Mahm~d's arguments to be

li

worthy of study.w Be sides the importance of this issue, the

iv
 ,
( autnor
1
maintain~ that senses; reason, and religious texts
Icannot be ignored in the process of acquiring the ~n'owledge
of God .

..
o.

1
..

,) o
o
,
J
/

,1

?
'<
1
l'

c
)
v
~ -.~ .. --"'r _ -
. ~ , ~
-
-----.. _ _ _ ....... n
~1: _ _ _ . . .. _ ... ~ _ --:--f
 ,~J
1 "-

1
,1

III
1

'" ,~ \
'\

1
.' , ~ 4 "

'(1 / RESUME
\ .
,
.of

.\
\
" Auteur C Abd al-Wahid Afolabi Ahmad al-RfacI
,
Titre de la th~se 'La Critique par c Abd al~Hal~,Mahmd
....
. de la Raison Comme Moyen d'Acqurir la

Connaissance de Dieu.
, <

Dpartement Etudes Islamiques, Universit McG,il}.,

Montral.

Diplme Maitrise s arts.

c' 0

Cette thse tente d'analyser la critique par Abd al-

, 1 HalIrn Mahmd de la raison comme moyen d'acqurir la connais-

sance de Dieu. Ancien recteur de l'Universit

'
al-Azhar .
du Caire, c Abd al-HalIrn Mahmd tait un soufi de l'ordre
.,
al-ShadhilI. Il n'a pas -accept le besoin d'employer les

sen? et la raison dans le procs de connaitre Dieu,. _ En .

justifiant sa perception, il limlte l'tude des objets

physiques les fonctions d'induction et de dduction qui,

toujours selon lui, n'ont aucun rapport avec la m taphysique:

ainsi, les textes religieux ne peuvent permettre 'accder

la connaissance immdiate de Dieu.

c' Partant de ce que la con~~issance de DJ~U constitue

vi
 1
/
/
l'aspect fondamental de la foi Islamique comme des tudes
( >

de mtaphysique, l'auteur de ce~te\th~se estime que les

arguments
,.
de Mahmd doivent faire l'objet, d'une tude.

/ ....
Par ailleurs, le rle des sens, de la raison~et des textes

religieux dans
, J
l'ac~uisition
1
de la connaissance de Dieu
,

ne peut pas tre ,neglig.

If
r

/'
.-

f
,1
"
1
!
/
" ) /
1
1
,
f

f 4

./

1
i \ u

.. / 1

vii.

- _..- . . "",. .... ...-...-_-A . .

 ) J

-;
(
/
_1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ix

INTR0DUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . et 1

CHAPTER
ABD AL-HALIM MAHMUD: HIS LIFE AND HIS THOUGHT

l
I.. C

e . - -
.
Abd a1-Ha1im Mahmud's -Biography .........
The Nature of Know1edge And Its Method . . . . . . . 6
,
The Know1edge of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mahm~d's Critiejsm of Modernism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
. ;..
Cane 1 USlon ................... ~ ...... 25
Notes 28

II. FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHY AND C ILM AL-KALAM 41

-
Criticism of Phi1osophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 "
C -'
Criticism of I1m a1-Kalam ........ " .... . .. 60
Note s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :..... 71

III. FOCUS OF MAHMD' S THOUGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'...... 85

1 The Philosophie Method Is Use fuI But

(
Not Rerfeet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
God Is Knowable Through Suf~sm On1y . . . . . . . . . . 91
.
T h e Mo d ern Vlew
"\ . . . .,
0 f Su f'i ~m . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . '.. 94
Ana1ytiea~ Study of the SfI System ....... 97
Notes 105

CONCLUSION 113 J

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

~ ;lo.viii
).
(

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

l am deeply indebted te my parents and - a- noble man

J
called Alh~ji SacId Folarni Arojojoye who granted me an

award of more than $30,000.00, may Allah reward them aIl

.. indefnitely.
~ 0

Similarly, my profound thanks go to the

Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill~University, for the

,
fellowships it awarded me. 1 also express my gratitude

te Alhaji c Abd al-cAzIz Ari~ek~la'/~r7 Mu~ulumi ef Yoruba

land, who gave me _$3~OOO.OO when 'le met last year. l

cannot forget Alhaji Amusa O. Lawal Are, the Manager of

the United Bank fo~ Africa Limited, Idumagbo, Lagos who

\
1
took up ~he responsibility of remitting aIl the ~oney to

me, and l thank him for that.

Without the sincere crlticism and generous guidance

of Professor css J. Boullata, this thesis would not have

been possible. He helped me so much that he had sometimes

to forge his leisure, and l am truly thankful for his co- C'

C -e
operation. l must nat ferget to thank Prafessor Wadi Z.

Haddad under
f
'Ilhose instruction l chose the tapie of this

thesis. Also, l am very grateful ~a Professor Donald P. . 1

Little, the Director of the Institute, and Professar

(~ . .
Charles J. Adams who always gave me invaluable encourage-

ment. l th,ank Mrs. Diane Vandahl-Laekman who translated

. .
ix
 1
/ .1
/ 7~

. / .'
1

,)

( the abstrct of this thesis into French.

The staff of
1
the Institute Library also deserve many thanks for their

co-operation and ror providing the sources used for the

"

writing of this thesis.

In the same way, l express my gratitude for loyal

1
suggestions made by sorne friends and rnat~s such as

cAbd al-KarIm Douglas Crow, Ridwan A. Ysuf, lysa Ade v

Bello of the University of Toronto, c Abd al-Haqq,4 Mrs .

Ann Barbezat, Msa A;eleke Ahmad and others. Finally, ,I

thnk my mother, brothers and sisters, wives and children

who tolerated rny absence during the period of this program .

.
May Allah bless thern aIl and have mercy on my father. , "

Amen .

. \

c
;
1
x
-1
... -.~,.-,-",_~",,-,,,,,,,,,,,,._~,,,,,,~. __ .-
 .
, -

<'

.INTRODUCTION

.
Abrief biography of ?Abd al-Ha1Im Mahmud (1910-

;1978) is presented in the first part of Cpapter I. He was

a gnostic Su fI whose opinion regarding the use of the

senses and reason in acquiring the know1edge of God seems

, 1
to have been ambiguous. His thought evolved as a negative

reaction to modernism in Egypt. This rendered his

writings rare1y free from prejudice or subjective judge-

ment on many issues. The main thernes of his arguments con-

.centrate on the question of rnethod which, he b~lieves,

must be determined by the type of knowledge that one seeks.

With this in min~, his general notion ,of knowledge is

ana1yzed ~n the second_ part of the same.chapter.

.
Mahrnud be1ieves that rnetaphysica1
,
,"
realities are
\
beyond the reach of both senses and reason, though he often

contradicts hirnse1f on this point. He ascribes fai1ure

to philosophy and Islamic scholasticism be'qause he believes

1 \

that rationality which is their authoritative rnethod s

fa11ible. His cri ticism of" this rnethod used in j>hi1os6phy

!

and kalam is analyzed in Chapte~s l and II. Th short-

comings of his argument in Chapter II a~e narrated in

c 1:"
~hapter III by conceding the fact that neither the useful-

ness nor the fal1ibili ty of Ph~SOPhiC met~od ~ is deniable."

-<- -.
 2

.( a
.
Mahmud's view that Sui! ecstasy should replace rationality
'" has been scrutinized in the chp.pter by contrasting his _
o
o
concepts of Suf ism wi th the modern notion of knowing in

th'e light of the Islamic orthodoxy.

.
c Abd al-HalIm Mahmud's writings and those of his

immediate opponents are the primary sources of this thesis;

~
other works on Islamic theology, philosophy, Sufism and

history hlve been used as secondary sources whenever the

-
. ne'ed was warranted.
,
In the cqnclusioIT', the writer of this work affirms

the indispensabili.ty of induction in the study of meta-

physics. Though this notion is bsic to Islam, as al-

Nashshar explaini3, it proves also to be reasonable. As a

,
.
basis for man 1 s accountab11ity for his actions in Islam,

the necessityof rationality for any aspect of human knowing

is empl1.asized. With some shortcomings observed in both

-\ ;

the rnethod and the concl~si.ons of Sufism, Mahmud' s proposal

.
1s considered to be untenab1.e. The rej ection of Mahrnud 1 s
~ -
\
view should not be taken as a condemnation of Sufism, ~e-.

cause spirituali~..::.-...is a means of attaining righteousness

. and is Inseparable from Islam. Th~ conclusion impli.es

that the concept of knowledge, acceptable to bath arthodox

Islam and modern thought, cannot stand without involving

the use of the senses 'and the intellect. ~e ecstatic

l'.
v

method advocated in Su1:ism is in no, way capab1.e of lea'ding

to any .knowledge
..
o

~() ,.
- - - . - -- . ---_._~----_._-.~-
(

CHAPTER l

c ABD AL- HALM MAHMO: HI S LI FE AND HI S THOUGHT

C Abd al-HalIm MaI;md' s Biography

As there is yet no detai1ed biography wri tten by

any scho1ar on Dr. C Abd al-HalIm Mahmd, the account of

1
his ~ife that will be presented in" this ,thesis is based

on the' following sources:

(i) a scanty biographical a'ccount published in

1977 in Maja11at Al-Azhar; 1 <,'

(ii) an autobio9'raphy published in 1976,,,,,:two years

2
before its author's death.

Though autobiogr~hies ~re most1y characterized by a. certain

subjectivity, they do consist of first-hand information which

)

may be useful if proper caution i~ "

taRen in employing them.

Twelve articles were als~ published about this ~an in

,
Majallat al Azhar in 1978 ~ut the y hardly add ~nything of

impor~nce t~ the biographical study of the author. 3/
"iAbd l-HalIm Mahmd, the, f;mer Rector of il-AZha/
University in Cairo, was born in 1910 in the village ~
-=--
( al-Salam, Egypt. 4 This village was founded by his great-

grandfather on ail estate which ,was .later developed by his

3
,
, '
1
1 - -.-_.~ ,--------- ... ~-
 4

grandfather in the province of Bilbays. The genealogical

(
tree of his farnily is traceable to Prophet Muhammad through

the descendants of Husayn ibn cAlI ibn AbI Talib. 5 His

father, a one-tirne student of al-Azhar, was said to have

been one of the pupils o~ Shaykh Mu~ammad c Abduh

e Abd al-Halim
- was brought up in his birthplace and

was registered at the age of six in a Qur'anic school

[kuttabJ from which he graduated when he was about nine

years old. Afterwards he stayed with his parents for sorne

years. Later on, he gained admission to a primary school,

then moved to the IbrahIm Agha Mosque in Cairo, a school

preparing stude~ts for advanced learning in al-Azhar. Within

a short period, he was transferred to al-Zaqazlq Institute

in al-ZagazIq, an approximate equivalent of the Junior

'H~gh School, where he eompleted his four-year intermediate

studies.

In pis zeal for winning prizes, he developed ~ wide

interest in reading in order to prepare himself for the then

prevalent acadernic competitions. He participated' in manyof

thern, won several prizes, and acguired learning. In his

first yea~ of Seeondary School in Cairo, he realized that

his standard was ab9ve that of the syllabus, th~fore he

.
withdrew upon eornpletion of that ye~r and enrolled as a
6
private student for the final examination of' the Secondary
, 1).. .... ' C:I
School Cert"ifieate. Though he railed in the Arabie grarnmar

and philology examinati~ns, he was ab~e/to

make them up in
7
his second attempt and obtained his certificate in 1928.

\
 5

The following year, c Agd al-HalIm started his degree

( .,.
program in al-Azhar. He cornpleted it in 1932 and was awarded

/ the CAl~miyyah Certificate. Upon hiS graduation frorn al-A~har,

he left 'for the Sorbonne in Paris where he studied s,oc iology,

ethics, psychplogy, and history of relig{ons in a Bachelor's

degree program. At the be-ginning of 1938, he was awarded an

.Azhar fellowship for his doctoral program at the Sorbonne.

Two years tater, he defended his doctoral dissertation

entitled Al-MohasibI, un Mystique Musulman Religieux et 1

Moraliste. 8
, '1
,
Irnmediately after he returned tQ Egypt in 1940, Mahrnud
. took up an appointrnent in al-Azhar University a$ a lecturer

in psychology in the College of Arabie Language. Ten years

later, he was appointed Professor of Philosophy in the ~aculty (

of Divinity (Kulliyyat Usul al DIn) of whidh he becarne Dean in

1964. In 1968, he was elected Secretary-General"of the Islamic

c - -
Studies Aeademy of al-Azhar (Majrna al-Bu~uth al-Islamiyyah

bi 'l-Azhar) after being a rnernber for two years, and Vice-

Chancellor of al-Azhar in 1970. Before the end of the follow-

ing year, he was appointed Minister of Awqaf and al-Azhar's

Affairs in Piesident Sadat's regirne. He reached the goal of

aIl al-Azhar's scbolars, that is, the post of Rectorship

(Shaykh al-AZhar/ in 19~, and he successfully held it until

his death in 1978. 9

As for his wr~tings, aIl are in Arabie except his

doctoral dissertation which he wrote in French. He translated

sorne works-from French into Arabie, such as Le Peseur d'Ames,

 6 /
(
by Andr Maurois (Paris, 1931),10 le Probl~m~ Moral. et les )
.
Philosophes, by Andr cress;n- (:par'is, 1,933),11 and others .

He also edited severa1 SufI manuseripts such as Al-RiCayah

li-~uqug Allah by al-Mu~asibI (Oairo, 1958), Al-jUngidh min

al Dal~l by al-Ghazza11 (Cairo, 1952) and others.

,wever,
. .
1

his main contribution2 -may be classified in three c

(a) his wor~s on' Islamic thought such}as al-TawJ;Id

J egorie!3:

al-Khalis aw al-Islam wa "l-c Ag1 (cliro, 1966),

. -
al-Tafkir al-FalsafI fI Il-Islam (Cairo, 1974),

al-Madrasah al-Shadhiliyyah wa Imamuha (Cairo,

~ n. d.) and others;

(b) his biographies of several notable Sufis sueh as

I,J
.
Abu 'l-Hasan al-ShadhilI (Cairo, 1967), Ohu

'l-Nun a1-MisrI (Cairo, 1973) and others;

--

(e) his reaetion to modernism in Egypt, contained i~

one major work entit1ed Manhaj al-Islah al-IslamI

1
C
fI 'l-Mujtama (Cairo, 1972), and in his articles
"l
published in various issues of Maja1lat al-Azhar,

e.g., Mawqif al-Islam min a1-Fa1safah, 50 (Part

I: January, February, & March; Part II: April,

1978); Al-SharIcah al-Islamiyyah fI Maj1ii al-

e .. -
Sha b, 48 (February, 1976);' A~-Islam wa Tanzim
c
al-Mujtarna , 48 (April, 1976).

c ABD AL-HALIM MAHMO'S THOUGHT

The Nature of Knowledge and its Method

Mahrnd's discussion of the nature of know1edge is very

 7

(
acute but relatively inadequate because he exc1udes God' s ..
12
knowledge which has usually been included in such discussion,
13
by preceding Muslim theological thinkers. Probably he regarda

previous practice as out-of-date or he ignores it in 0rder to

concentrate on human knowledge in which he deals directly with

14
method, his major topic. He employs the word~ilm (knowledge)

in his discussion of the knowledge of both the

, physical and

the metaphysical worlds, proclaiming that his usage of this

term differs from that of the Europeans. 15 . However, he

1

claims that the Islamic concept 'of ~nowledge includes the, ----.
aforesaid divisions of the knowable abject, and pe emphasizes

its coherence by citing Andr Cresson's classification of

philosophy into theory and practice~l6

/ As for the methods of ac~uiring knowledg~, be lists

three different ones which have original-ly ~een cited by

al-KindI. 18 He specifies the senses for physics, the intellect

for arts, and revelation for metaphysics.' He links the

intellect with ~he senses and he subjects its functiqn ta

sensation by which he demarcates the power of intellectual

.
perception.
1.
Because of this 'limited nature of reason, Mahmd

declares that it is incapable of leadihg ta metaphysical

knowledge. He maintains that the subject matter of metaphysics

consists of ~thics, legislation, and the knowledge of GOd,l9

none of which, he believes, can be studied ratio~ally.20 To

him, rationalism ~n the study of'ethics and legislation is

21
contrary ta the subrnission required of a Muslim. He clairns

that the supremacy of reason over revelation changes rat\o~~lity,

 /

'f
from being an aid of revelation to bein~ a primary rnethod
( ,,'

of acquiring metaphysical knowledge. Besides this, he ~ites

someoexamples to prove the fal~ibility of reason such as

tQe impossibility of unanimity arnong human viewpoints.

He explains that rnany metaphysical theories can be ration-

, ~

alized but they dannot become applicable ~n practice. He

supports this statement by c~ting the failure of Plato,22

Manes, and others to put their metaphysical theorl1es into

23
practice. He concludes that the only :impeccable metho 0

of ac~uiring metaphysical knowledge 1s revelation.

24

If Mahmd's view is within the realm of Islamic

orthodoxy, one may point to many Qur'anic verses which" contrary

25
to his view, recommend the use of reason. The Prophet's
)

1 approval ofa 'independent rea~oning' [ijtihid],26 the exercise

of which has generated the Islamic schools of la~, will also

need ~o be reconciled with Mahmq's denial of rationality in

. l a t'lon. 2 7
e thi cs an d l egls With regard to Qur'anic verses on

the use of reason, he interprets any word that denotes

ar ] . 2 8
mere con t emp l a t 'lng ' [ 1. Ct 1. b-
, reasonlng
. " as
.H
~ says

that these and other similar verses used in the Qur'an do

not indicate permission to criticize revelation, because

religion is revealed to guide man's intellect rather than to

be guided by it. 29 His remark is Islamically accurate but not

his interpretation. Concerning 'independent reasoning'

[ijtihad], he defines it as an intellectual effort to find a

30
basis in the Prophet's practices for a, newly generated case.

This definition shows lack of logic, because neither

l
 .,
9

(
linguistically nor theoretically does it stqte the essential
'.
attributes of ijtihid.
3l
~or instance, it excludes the
ind~pendent aspect of the;intellectual process approved by

the pr~phet when an iSSU~ iS,not covered by the Qur'an and

1
' h e t '1C t
the P op r~ d'1 t '1on~ 32

As a result of thir~finition, "Mahrnud, deni'es aIl

jurisprudential in~ere~ce~ of~an's creati~ity.33 The validity

of this view entails a certain reconciliation with cUmar's

34
practices during the expansion of 'the Islarnic conquests,

especially his cancellation of Abu Bakr's practice of giving

35
a piece of land to those whose hearts were to be reconciled.
- '
cUmar's action "is obviously contrary to Qur'anic instruction,

and Ma~d adopts the deduction of the jurists classifying

c "',
this action as a termination of the benefit [irtifa a1-masl~hah],

the constituent basis of the Qur'~nic instruction.

36
If in

Islam no Muslim has a right to abrogate any part of revelation

by his own reasoning,37 cUmar's action cannot override divine

instruction. Be it a trmination'of ~ine instruction or not,

, 38
cUmar's practice in no way supports Ma~d's view.

In addi~ion to this, Ma~ud's denial of rationality

in metaphysics contradicts his other statement that Islam

focuses its legislation on the reign of justice, its ethics

on mercy, and its social relations on human brotherhood. He

says that Islam makes the doctrine of the oneness of God the
39
main source of al+ the above-mentioned principles. However,

the affirmation of these principles indicate~ an indirect,

agreement with the flexibility of Qur'anic interpreta~ion to



.. ,1
l
J
10

achieve an inevitab1e reconci1iation through which the u1timate

(, 1
religious aim is reaGhed. In other words, the app1icabi1ity

of the afore-mentioned princip1es of human behaviour entai1s

the use of reason. For instance, though justice is a genera1

princip1e, to exercise it in judging behavioural cas,es requires

an abi1ity to rationa1ize. -.
On the other
, hand, 'Mahrnd' s affirmation of these

principles puts great importance on achieving them, ~o matter

what method one emp10ys in the' process. Though he says that

both the means and the, end of metaphysical knowledge have 1

" been prescribed in the Qur' an, he does not pr~ve this clafm.
40

The Knowledge of God1

.
Mahmud conslders the suft way as the only appropriate
41
method for acquiring the knowledge of GOd. He justifies

. .
this view by recounting Muharnrnad's spiritual practices before

prophethood and'accordingly declares the Prophet to be the

, first Su fI . 42 ..

In his endeavours to d~termine the ideal method of

" knowledge, he contradicts
acquiring the hims~lf an many points.
: ,
For instance, the power of reason which he denounces for its'

fallibi1,ity and limited nature 43 is 1ater sanctioned by him

as a dominant method in the initial process of the SufI g~osis

of God. 44 He sometimes adroits that reason can lead to the
c-
. 45
knowledge of God, though he identifies, it as a risky method.~

He elaborates the risk contained in the use of this method

as a wrong conclusion that awaits its function and he justifies

, .

-. Il

~his decla~ation with the following namelYi

(.
(i) That reason is intrinsically limited and' rela-

tive in'its function by which aIl rational

~onclusions are predestined to be invariably

different.

(ii) That since human knowledge is subject to

experience, reason cannot lead to the

knowledge of Gad Who is beyond aIl experiences.

He compares the danger of employing reason alone in this field

with that of rossing the se~. a~ ord~nary fIat board of

wood, and the secur'i~y of employing revelation with that of

c~ossing the sea on a ship.46 But surprisingly, the vehidlk

of the religious text, that is, revelation-,wl'lich a Muslim,

in his view, is compelled ta submissively accept as the only

irrefutable method of knowing God, becomes incapable of ~

leading ~o the direct knowledge Qf GOd. 47 This is evident on

1

cornparing the foregoing arguments with the following extract:

..
The most appropriate method is a complete
submission '(to revelat~ion) for this is the
path leading to real faith. . . but this is
not direct knowledge (of Gad). The conclu-
. . '
.
sions we draw from the above discussions are:
(i) Senses cannet lead us to (the knowledge
of) the Unseen since we cannot perceive it.
(ii) T~ection of the intellect's functio~
to sensation proves its fallibility and its
limitation.
'( (iiL) Religious texts can also lead us te an
indirect knowledge through submission
.
'J

"
.. _-----.-.. ......"
 12
.. :

j
(to tne revelation) or entrustment '(of
(
the metaphysic~l knowledge to God); aIl
of which are usel~ss as far as the direct
.. knowledge of God is concerned. 4~8

However, MahmGd says th~ ~he process of ~nowlng God /

is in two stages: the firs~ he~specifies for discovering )
1

affirms the centrality of reason in the first stage, and of

purifi:ation in the second. 49 Though he ?ckI}.qwledges the'

borrowing of this method from Plotinue (205-270 A.D.) ,50 he

sanctions it because it.corresponds to the SufI method,

i~noring the fact that Plotinlsm ~$ a pagan system of thought

as he himself identifies ft.

.
Another point, though .ft. seems invalid, is Mahmud' s
statement that; 'senses cannot lead us ta (the knowledge of)
the Unseen since we cannot perce ive it.,Sl The weakness of

this notion les in the fact that God is not directly

-,.. percptible to anyone, be his method sens~ry, rational Gr

revelational. Bes.ides, the carporeal form of man entails

,
insepa~ability of sensation from the initial process of human

knowing. With the combinat ion of-soul and body, man is

capable of recognizin~ his existence, perceiving tbe being
of other thing~, and discovering the logical necessity of

a Creating Power for aIl the conting~nt beings. This analysis

disproves Mahmd's negative concept above, and it also suggests

"', ..
~ -- - ...... ~
,
 13

strongly the indi~pensability of corporeal form for

o

(
Descartes' motto or principle, 'cogito ergo Sum' 52
" ~
~While cornrnenting on Qur'anic verses relating to natural

things, Mahmud
, .
cou Id not do without saying what is para-

phrased as, 'By showing the natural link of a part of the 1

globe to the other, the scientific conclusions may proyide

the ~eligionists with proof on that the world'does not exist

by rnere chance but as a creation of GOd.,53 This staternent,

1 ~

though conf~rrn~ng. with the co~cept rnaintained in orthodoxe

Islam,
./
makes Mahmud fall in self-contradlction .

.. Concerning the subjec~ matter, Mahmud initial1y denies

that any revelation, including the Qur'an, establishes the

'"
. existence of God,54 and declares the knowledge of God to be an
55
issue ofaxlorn and sornetlrnes of both axiom and reason. In

sorne of his works, he denounces the theological study of this

il
question. Nevertheless, he affirrns the Qur'anlc establishment
- 56
di the sarne doctrine in sorne of his other ,works. However ,

he concentrates on God's existence and His attributes, the

study of which , he believes, originates many ihsoluble

prob+ems. He illustrates thlS claim by saying that the

study of ,God's unit y and Justice has given rise to the doctrine

, , of the createdness of the Qur'an and the problem of predestina-

ti~n.5~ He attributes th~ lack of unanimity on these topics

to the fact that th~y cannot be solved by reason. 58 In

addition to this, he cites many Prophetlc traditions which,

( according to him, discourage holding any rational

.
discussion
~

on the issue, such as: Obey and do not "innovate for you have
 i.
5
e been provided with,what is enough; 9 and C~ntemplate the
(
bounties of God, not His Essence l~st you perish;60 and
'"
Pass them as the y came, 61 that is, affirm the.attributes
,
as tney are stated. He de termines from both the lack of

unanim~~y among those who drawlrational conclusions and from

the above cited quotations, that the knowledge of God's

existence and His attributes should be included in the

'ambiguous verses' [mutashabih], and exc~ud~d from Islamic

62
theological studies. Thus he finds another basis for pis

.' point of view in the subdivision of the Qur'an into clear and

ambiguous verses. He believes that the Qur'an denies that

the interpretation of the ambiguous verses can be known; 63

therefore, they should not be studied or scrutinized. He

attributes this concept to the orthodox ancestors [al-salaf

al-salih] who, he believes, have entrusted the knowledge of

1
1
mutashabih to God. But it is known that other Qur'anic verses
ascribe clarity to the revelation;64 therefore, absurd~ty

arises from
, the combination of two opposites. Though to

dismiss ~h~s contradiction creates nQ problem, as the Islamic

legal principle of specifying the generality [takhsIs
. . al-camm]
of sorne verses in light of others coq Id be applieg, the contro-
versy about the exact orthodox concept of mutashabih and ta'wIl
o , 65
still needs a unanimous solution. For instance, did the

orthodox ancestors affirm a literary ambiguity in any Qur'anic

verse the interpretation of which, as Mahmd proclaims,66

they had entrusted to God?

Many divergent opinions come down from the orthodox

, ,
 -

.'

, i
ancestors regarding this'issue: soml:! traditions $uQpor-t-
( f--:-

Ma~d's view wh~le others do not. 67 . Since both'views are

derived from 1slamic orthodoxy, neither can be disqualified.

In dealing with Mahmud's view of excluding the knowledge

of God' s existence and 'His attributes from Islamic theology,

'. of-

controvers~ about the clarity or the arnbiguity of the Qur'anic

.~

vers's can -be avoided. 1s it possible to exclude the study of

r

these metaphysical aspects from Islamic theology? This question

cannot be answered without verifying exactly what has led the

Muslims to hold,rational discussions ~bout the knowledge of

God, because Mahmd I s view can only be validated if the cause

of rational discussiond of theological doctrines is cqncluded.

Ahmad AmIn ascribes the origin -of rationality in 1slamic

1
/
theology to an'incessant friction between the followers of
1
/ Islam and Christianity.68 This is contrary to the opinion

of' Sl:laykh Mustafa C Abd al-Raziq who attributes the origin of

Muslim rationality in metaphysics to the'influence of Greek

philosopliy, thoughHe affirms the prior establishment of

independent reas9ning [al-ijtihad bi 'l-ra'Yil as the beginn~ng

of rationality_ ~n Islam. 69 Both the inherent doctrinal

conflicts among the revealed religions and the influence oI

Greek 'philosophy are included in the external factors

mentioned by al-Nashshar as being the origin of Muslirn

rati~nality in metaphysics. He adds to this an internaI

..
factor identified as the mention of God's Essence, His Name~,

c. divine omnipotence and man's free will in both the Qur'an

and the Prophe~ic tradition the study of whic~, he believes,

, -

.,i
--------- ----.-..-------------.....,.-
 16'"
'.
"
70
has internallY'led,the Muslims to rationality in metaphysics.
(
~hou~ al-Nashshar mentions the Islamic disapprov~l

of discussing theolQgical issues rationally, this is just

one of two related opinions from the orthodox ancestorsi

the other view approves it as, Ibn Taymiyyah maintains. 71

Besides the traditional irr'futability of ei ther opinion,

\
the persistent controversy on the exact orthodox concept of

mutashabih and ta'wIl invalidates the basis of Mahmud's Q

argument. For this reason, as w11 as the doctrinal conflicts

among the revea1ed religions, obviously the problems which

have ori~inated the rational discussion of Islmic theology

are still there. Hence, Mahmd' s v~ew is not val id. Even

if we presume the validfty of his view, the substitutes he

.
suggests are inadeqpatJ wi~hout the knowledge of God which
.
~s t eh '
pr~mary .
m~ss i on 0 f Islam. 72 Fur th ermore, as
c
proselytization cannot be eliininated from the main dut Y of

a mis~ionary, the possibili ty of achieving this end required

rational discussion on any issue.

Mahmd's Criticism of MOdernisrn*

~
\ 1\
, ,;..:: Mhmd has written a major work in which he expresses
73
his view about modernism in Egypt; similar themes are

repeatd in many of his other works and articles published

. .~ssues 0 f MaJa
in var~ous . Il a t a~-Azhar.
~ 7 4 Th e ana,l '
yS1S

. of his thought in this regard' requires a summary of the

-ge~ral response of the Eqyptian Muslirn eli te t'o modernis~

when it first apP~iFed. Of" course, there has been no

-
 17

unanifnous acceptance of modernism. The conservative's regard

(
it as a danger to Islam, and declare a war against i t and

its advocates. The modernists have confidence in the per-

fection of modern civilization and consider i t the best

criterion for the modernization of Isl'am. 75 According

, to

Ahmad Amin, there is no necessi'ty for the total rej ection of

modern civilization. Al though he affirms the existence and

the utility of Western scientific discovery, he i5 quite

, "

opposed to accepting any aspect of the European culture that )

has to do with the knowledge ofl God and moral values. Like

Mahmd, he seet> that the arbi tration of reason has to be

stamped out and replaced by revelation or spiritual exertion

76
as the appropria te method of attainin9 metaphysica~ knowledge.
On the other hand, c Abduh sees conformity between~the Qur'an

arid modern science. 77 Accord'ingly, the correlation between

Islam and modern civilization and the advocacy of the freedom

"
o f thought cons t 1. t u t e th e maJor
. f ocus 0 f h'~s . t ~ng.
wr~ . 18

Before Mah..'1lud responds to these divergent opinions,

he first affirms the Islamic origin of modern science by

citing the Qur'anic allusions to the sciences. 79 He also

recounOts the scientific contributions of the Arabs and suggests 4

that this, however, should not be made a basi~ for qualifying

sciences with the nationality of any contributor to the

scientific advancement. 80 Regardless of the origin of this

view,81 the scientlfic contribl1tion~ of the ArabE: are affirmed

in many contemporary works; 82 "
therefore, ~n order to avoid

confusion, Mahmud' s suggestion ta leave sciences unqualified

.
----j_
'

... -_._.. .- ----.. r

--~--"'_~'""'M'~I _ _""'''''''' -.-J
 18

,,

(
by any nationa~i ty
V
or race is logical.
J
As for the concept of modernism, Mahmd divides Islamie

,civilization into physies and metaphysics. ~3 He agrees to the

modernization of the former, the method and subject mat-ter

of which he claims to be originally Islamic. Therefore

< he maintains that the resumption of the study of physics by

Muslims should not be regarded as borrowing from an alien

'84
civilization .. but rather as the continuation of their heritage. -

Concerning the metaphysic.al aspect of Islamic eivilization,

any attempt to m0gerniz~ it is, in his view, a step towards

the corruption of revel.ation. 85 Sinee he restricts the Qur' anie

recommendatioh of applying reason to, the scientific field,86

he disagrees about modernizing metaphysies. 87 This view is

actually a consequence of the emphasis he lays on the divine

aspect of religion and the fall~bility or limited nature

6f reason. He also justifies his. view by citing Qur' anic

verses and Prophetie traditions whieh lit~rally, disapprove

of holding any rational discussion on this subject. 88 On

account of this, Mahmd declares any rational study of Islamic

metaphysics to be eontrary to the submission required of a'-

Muslim:89
, "
A further elaboration of his argument may be

subdivided into three par.ts:

1. Does Islam need to be modernized?

Answering this question, Mahmd postulates the non-

existence in -Islam of what he identifies as the major factor of

- . _ _ ... -.J< Ao.I. _ _ _ _' ...._ _ _ _ _ _" "

 19

90
Christian modernization. According to him, modern civiliza-
(
tion was born solely because the Church persecuted the

scientists for their conclusions which were inconsistent with

official Christian teachings. Revolting against the t6rturers~

the victims advocated a complete separation of Church and State,

and the modernization of Christian thought in general.

1

Consequently, the term 'hurnanism' was introduced and was

later followed by critic~sm of religious teachings, including 1

theological doctrines. 91 Gradually religion was replaced

by reason and conscience: the former as a source of theology

and the latter of morals, but both soon prqved to be incapable

92
of substituting for revelation. contrary ta Muslim modern-

ists who regard the proclaimed closure of independent reasoning

_
[ijtihad] as a repressive con?ept sirnilar to the acts of the
,) "'~

rnedieval Church, Mahmd does not see it as a problem.

, Thugh this is inconsistent with his denial of any human

creativity in ijtih.ad,93 it is understood from one of his

t,
articles on Islamic law that he supports the continuity of ,,

. ~'h-d'
, 1J t:.~ a ln rs 1 am. 94 However, he sees no need for moderhism

in ISlarn,95 because'there has never been a conflict between

\

Islamic teachings and the scientific discoveries. In addition

tO,its being divine~y inspired, and as far as ethics and

'. legisla t:ion are concerned, Islam' s concept of the totali ty

of human existence needs no arnendment in order to match any

96
age. This conclusion implies that Islam has laid down the

principles for the human events of aIl ages. Though this

;4

point coincides with the thought ~f 'the Egyptian modernists,

--,"~ -_
.... _~- "...,. .............. _.... -;.
 /
/ 20
/
~

the difference lies in how these principles have to be applied

( '/1
in practice. To the rnodernists, reason is th~ arbitrary
method for the interpretation of the Islamic revelation
by which it will conforrn to the exigencies of aIl ages 97
while Mahrnd, though he does not reject reason as a subordinate
method, sees Islamic revelation as capable of rnatching all
ages without any new interpretation other than what has been
made by the orthodox ancestors. To him, the dut Y of the
Muslirns is only to obey and apply the teachings of Islam'
without amendment. 98

2. If Islam is universal and absolute, does it also

f

provide the exi~encies of modern life?

Having envisaged the danger that this question implies,

the rnodernists provide a solution for the foreseeable problerns
') ,

by correlating ijtihad with evolution. 99 ~Revelation in

Juda1srn, Christianity, and Islam, according to cAbduh's
reforrnist thought, acknowledges the growth and developrnent. of
man as a psyc h 0 l og i ca l being. 100
However, Ma hm u d ser~ous
. ly

attacks c Abduh and other modernists 10l for subsuming

the idea of evolution into the scope of~re11gion.102 He
does not see any conforrnity between the idea of evolution and
ijtihad, because his exarnination of both concentrates on how
and why each 1s established. The unavoidab1lity of development
recognized by, his opponents is not considered by Mahrnd as an
f
c h arac t er i s t '~c 0 f ~,man. 10
. . 3
i ntr~ns~c He sees evolut1on only t
as a convenient theory used to cover~he fallibility
r;;
of hurnan 1
 ..
,"
21

i
/
( rationality or the defects of the proposed substitutes for
104
religion: neither of these is applicable to divine religion.

He associates the possibility of development in European thought

with its anthropomorphic originj for an~ man-made thing, he

says, is naturally imperfect and subject to change. On

the other hand, while demonstrating the fallibility of man's

.
intellect, Mahmud ascribes its imperfection to the influence

of nature, environment, time and culture. lOS This s~atement

eventually irnplies the development of man' S thinking, especially

in accordance with the environmental changes which auto-

matically affect anything applicable to man. Consequently,

if religion i5 to guide man, it cannot escape influencing

him through the channels 'mentioned by Mahmd before it-.is able

to achieve its aim.

3. Can Islam be modernized by adopt-

ing European civilization?

This question arises not only from the modernist

view, but the majority, if not aIl, of cAbduh's works and

those of the succeeding modernists that can also be seen as

1
attempts at harmonizing religion with the theories of modern
106
civilization. Basically, this effort has a foundation in

Islamic history, an'example of which is the aforementioned

changes introduced by the. second Caliph in order to solve

the problems of his time. To ,answer thi~ question, MahmUd

cites sorne Qur'anic verses and Prophetie traditions from

(
which he draws his negative opinion:
 22
)
And We ha~e given thee a rernembrance from Us.
(
Whosoever turns away from it, upon ~he Day of
Resurrection he shall bear a fardel, therein
abiding forever; how evil upon the Day of
Resurrection that burden fot them.

What, is it not sufficient for them th~t we

have sent down upon fPee the Book that is
recited by them? Surely in that is a mercy
l07
and a reminder ta a people who believe.

Commenting ~n this, Mahmd says that Ibn KathIr interpreted

the verse Whosoever turns away from it as 'those who turn

away from the Qur'an and follow any other Book' .108 'Actually

this interpreta-tion, is a littl~ medified, for Ibn KathIr was

net 50 speclflci he bro~dens the impli~ation of the pronoun

'whosoever' in the verse ta include Arabs, non-Arbs, the

people of the Book, and others whom the Islamic mission

~ 109
reaehes and yet the y reject the truth.

Mahmud justifies his speeifiG interpretatian of this

verse by citing a Prophetie tradit~on which reads, He who

seeks guidance from any other than it (the Qur'an) will be

led astray by God 110

.
Though Mahmud's specification of
~

'whosoever' is invalid, the exegetes' inclusion of the people

.
of the Book in the signifieance of whosoever turns away
, "-
from it seems inconsistent with the Qur'anic affirmation of

both Judaism and Christianity as authentically revealed

At the s~me time, if we compare the verses

lll
religions.
( of the Qur'an with one another, it appears that the

inclusion of 'the people of the Book' in ewhosoever turns

 23

away from it is a consequence of the Qur' an' s ascription 0

of distortion to the,previous revelations and the Islamic

1 a f re
calm I '~'::110US
N' f'lna l '1 t y. 112 _ However, what matters is

the relevance of this citation to modernism in "Egypt. A

story is narrated by Mahmud about c Umar ibn al-Khattab who

encountered a vehement reaction from the Prophet on reciting

a part of the Old Testament [al-Tawrah]. The Prophet is

reported ta have said ta c Umar :

o son of al-Khattab, are you doubtful about

it (tl)e Our 'an)? By Him under Whose control
my soul is! l have brought it to you as
naturally pure. Do not ask them (the People
of the Book) about anything, for the y may tell
you the truth which you could disregard" or
falsehood which you may accepte By Him under
Ihose control my soul is! If Moses (himself)
were alive, he would have no option but to
fol1ow me .113

~
Finally, Mahmd adds another reason to this, namely, the

the fact that Western environment, religion and historical

114
background are different from'those of the East.

With the exception of the 1ast point, Mahmd's

arguments and citations appear to be irrelevant to those of

his opponents. For instance, neither the Qur'anic verses

nor the Prophetic traditions cited ab~ve negate or even

relate to the qUjstion of 'modernizing Islam in the light of .

c Western civiliz~tion. AlI of them can be cited only to refute

any doubt of Muhammad's mission or any turning away from

"

. ~~ --- ~-' - - .
 24

revelation, and 'the modernists have forwarded argumentso'

,
in favour of revelation
. .
.
None of Mahmd's opponents calls

for a positive answer to the question raised above, excluding

Dr. Taha ~usayn whose early intellectual activity advocated

"
complete westernization, and whose later penitence was, however,

considerably marked in Mir'at al-Islam. 115 The ultimate aim

of the Egyptian modernists has been the liberation ?f thought

by employing reason as a primary method for the interpretation

of Islami'c teachings. Although this i5 contrary ta Mahmd' s

opinion which excludes theological teachings f~m the scape

of Man' S rationality',ll6 the modernists are convinced that

since Islam claims to be of a universal nature and requires

man's commitment,it must be understandable, thus making possible

the reconciliatian between the universality of Islam, and the

.
ex~genc~es
, 0 f ma d ern l'~ f e. 117 Accordingly, cAbduh defines

theology as 'a science which deals with (the study of)

God's existence, H~S Attributes; the praof of the prophecy

of the messengers, their potentials and negative qualities'.

In addition to this" he emphasizes the centrality of reason

as "
the authoritative method in the study of these theological
118
~spects. He j~stifies this view,by citing the Qur'anic

demand for certitude and firrnness in one's belief in God and

His attributes which, according to him, implies no source

l19
other than the intellect. Regardless of its fallibility,
~
~ the priority of reason to revelation, cAbd~h argues, is evident

in the precedence of the former. In other words, he means

that one has to believe in the Source of revelation before

.. '- , ..-"~.iIl~..oQf#_ _,,,... . . . . 11

~
r .M'Y' .....""" :...
 25

( one believes in,th revelation itself. 120 This view has

l f . '
b~en handed down and promoted by succeeding modernist

scholars who have fortified it with Qur'anic verses as a

. 121
provision for the freedom of belief.

CONCLUSION

As l mentioned earlier, Mahmud's discussion of the

nature of knowledge is relatively inadequate and this seems

deliberate because his focus is on the review of the modern

,
method of metaphysical studies. Concerning the method,

Mahrnud some~imes denounces the po~er of reason for its

fallibility and declares revelation as the on~ impeccable

method in the study of metaphysics. Though the Qur'an

is to be applied as the sole tslamic Scripture in rega~d

" .
to ethics and legislation, how the process would ~e possible
<
without reason is not made clear., Again"Mahmud's restric-

tion of the Qur'anic advice to employ reason requires further

substantiation. 1
When it 'comes to the knowledge of Gad, Ma~ud
.,
\ disqualifies bath reason and revelation saying that, ~ven if
the lat,ter can .lead to any cognizance of God r i t is not

direct knowledge. However, he concludes his, argument by

adopting Plotinism as the p.method capable of leading to the

direct knowledge of Goa and spiritual exe~t~on as a means

for direct contact with God. As Mahmud argues that any
rationality which has no Scriptural basis is pagani.sm,122

one is left to wonder whether he thinks Plotinus derived

-
 , , 26

, this method from revelation or from his own personal deduction.

(
On account of t&e~e ~ontradictions and unclear sfate-

ments, Mahrnd cannot be regarded a$ representative of the

Tr~ditional SChool of thought. According td al-TaftazanI, the

1

claim of'an ecstatic method in addition to reason and

revelation is what distinguishes Sufism from any other school

o f Ph ~-1 osop h y on th e gues t'~on 0f ep~s ' t emo l ogy. 123 If we

add this to Mahmud's attempt to find the origin of Sufism

in Islam, there is enough ground ta conclude that Mahffid

.
advocates only Sufism in'his writings. However, the absence

of the SfI gno~is or direct know1edge of God in the discussions

.
of the orthodox ancestors, [al-salaf al-salih] .
, should have
required further explanation by Mahmd.
. The Prophetie

tradition which states: cContemplate the bounties of God,

not His Essence lest you perish,124 which Mahmud himself

.
' cites may be a cause for second thoughts . ,

The insolubility,of rnetaphysical problerns inferred

by Mahmpd frQm the lack of a unanimous conc'lu5ion is not

l
sufficient to condemn reason. Since differences are intrinsic

and originate from the relativity of huma~ perception, this

problem is i~separable from man in his human condition.

Presuming that revelation alon~ i5 employed as a method,

the traditionalists also differ from one another on man y

i~sues
-
in their understanding of the religious texte
Furthermore, the SfI conclusions differ about the concept

"( of Gad, ,though they aIl seek gnosis of God through ecstasy

or spiritual pu 7ification in addition te reason, revelation

- ~
,.u, "......_.....
... -' --_4"-""'l~!,",._--"-""'.!"-"*i._-......
'-..;.... &..........
,
 27 ",

or both. Sorne uphold the doctrine of ~antheism [wahdat

( ,
al-wujudJ while -others the doctrine of. incarnation
-1'~yya h-J 125
[h u 1 u.

Of course, it is the place of reason in cAbduh's

thaught that Mahmud criticizes. This is obvious when he

contrasts t e"primacy of reason with the obedience required

of a Muslim, which leads ~im(\ ta declare that the modernist

,

\
.
view deviates from Islam1c orthadoxy. He fails to refute

cAbduh's argument an, the priority of

, reasdn to rvelation,

and s1nce; aIl the efforts of the modernists are put farward

~n faVOUj of revelation, their actJvity can also be considered

-as obedience. The extreme rationality of the modernists is

.;

actual+y indisputable because, according ta them, revelatian

15 subject ta rea~an if they callide, and this 15 justified

as inevitable in the case of a universal religion whose

teachings are to be practiced. Nevertheles?, as reason does

not necessarily clash with revelation, any contradiction

arising between t~m

"
indicates that man needs to re-examine
J

the way he employs reason, not that he should alter revelation

according to his own rationality.

)
 .;

-~-

, J

\"

( \,

NOTES

Cha~ter l

,1 c Abd . al-Wadud ShalabI,> Nubdhah' c an FadIlat

al-Imam al-Akbar al-D~k.tr .
cAbd ' al-HalIm Mahmd:
,
Shaykh
al-Azhar, Majallat al-Azhar 49 (October/Novernber 1977 r:
1463-1466',

2 cAbd al-HalIm Mahmd, AI-Hamd li Allah: HadhihI

. c- . g

Qissat HayatL, (Cairo: Dar al-Ma arif, 1976~.

3 Hasan al-TihamI et al., 'Malaff Khass c an ~ayat

" p'

al-Imam al"Akbar, Majallat al-Azhar 51 (Decernber 1978):

221-247. (These articles written by different scholars on
.
cAbd al-HalIm are mostly laudatory and lack depth).

"
4 Mahmd, AI-Hamd li Allah: I!ayatI, pp. 36-37;
S;e a1so shaiabI, Nubdhah c an FadIlat al-Imam al-Akbar, b

p. 1463.

5 Mahmud, AI-Hamd li Allah: HayatI, pp. 30-31 .

6 The phrase 'private student' here rneans a student

'. who ,prepares hirnself for public exarnination without attending
any school.

c 7 Mahmd, AI-Harnd li Allah: HayatI, pp. 87-89.

28
.l
~ .
 29

8 Ibid., pp. 125-172 i se also ShalabI; cNu~dhah

c an FadI1at a~-Imam a1-Akblr, p.' 1463.

-
9
Ibid., p. 14-64.
~

..
10 c Abd al-Ha-1Im Mahmd, trans., Wazin a1-Arwah, by
.
Andr Maurois. (Cairo: DaD al-Katib al-MisrI, 1944.)

)..1 c Abd al-Ha1Im Mahmd, trans'., Al-,M.ushkilah a1-

Akh1aqiyyah wa r l-Falasifah, by Andr Cresson. (Cairo:
Dar al-Kutub a1-~adIthah, 1965J.

'12 The theolegical "discussion by MU's1ims of .the nature

of knowledge is usually opened by classifying it into divine
and humap. knowledge. See al-BaqillanI, Kitab al-TamhId, ed.
by R.Y. McCarthy, (Beirut: al-Maktabah a'l-Sharqiyyah, 1957)
p. 7; see aIse c Abd al-Rahman BadawI, Madhahib al-IslamiyyIn
Vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar al-CIim li r 1-MalayIn, 1971) p. 707.

13 c Abd al-Hai~ Mahmd,

. Mawqif al-Islam min al-Fann
wa 1 l-Palsafah, Maj a11at al-Azharr 49 (Ju1y 1977) pp. 8 qS-80 9.

14 c Abd al-Halim Mahmd,

. Mawqif al-Islam min al-
Falsafah, Majallat al-Azhar 50 (Aprill978) pp. 308-310;
c - - . -
see alse Abd al-~alim Mahmud, AI-Madrasah al-Shadhiliyyah

.
al-HadIthah wa Imamuha, (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-HadIthah, n.d.)
pp 96 , 102 -1 0 3 .

15 Mahmud, Mawqif al-Is1'am min al-Fann, p. 6'02.

16 Mahmud, Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 2.

.
"

-.-
 30

( 17 I,bid., p. 9; see also Mahmud,

- cMawqif-
al;:-Islam
, .
min al-Fann, p. 60.3.

18 YaCqb ibn IS~aq al-KindI, Al-KindI's Metaphysics,

trans., by Alfred L. Ivry (Albany: state University of New
"
York Press, 1974) pp. 61, 116; see also.Mahmd, Al-TafkIr
.
al-Palsaf! fI 'l-Isim, (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-LubnanI, '1974)
pp. 297-301.

19 Sometimes he empioys for this issue a more general

term as 'the knowledge bf the unseen world 1

.
2U c Abd al-Hal!m Mahmd, Al-Islam wa '1-cAg1 ,. (Cairo:
,

.
Dar al-Kutub al-HadIthah, 1966 pp. 9-10, 22; see also Mahmd, .
~J
cMawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 10.
-----

21 Mahmud, Al-Islam,
- p. 28.

22 The author illustrates

.- the failure which he ascribes
t' Plato' s and Mane' s metaphysics by citing the impossibility \

of imp~ementing the former's theory by which he clas9ifies' ~

soc,iety intp guardians, wiur'iors, and artisans. He also
.
justifies that of Manicheism by mentioning the destructive
characteristic of its theory which did not even spare the life 1,
of its founder. ~
1

,?3 c Abd al-HalIm Mahmd, CAl-Islam wa TanzIii; a.l-Mujtama c ,

Maja1lat al-Azhar 48 (AP~'il 1976) pp. 405-407.

24' - -
M~hmud, Al-Islam, p. 10.

25 Qurla-n 4.'82,' see a 1 so, '38 : 29 ..'

, ,
.
'
 31

( . .
26 Al-ArnidI, Al-Ihkam fI Usl al-Ahkam, Vol. 4,
(Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-CIlmiyyah, 1980) p.2lS.
.

27Mahmud, Al-Islam, pp. 9-l0~

28 Ibid., p. 14.

29 Ibid., pp. 14-15; see also Ma~d, Mawqif al-Islam

min al-Falsafah, p. 9_

30 c Abd al-Halrm Mahmud, Manhaj al-Is.lah al-IslamI fI

'l-Mujtama c , (Cair~: al-Sh~cb, n.d.) p. 29.'

31 Irving M. Copi, Introduction ta Logic, (London~

The~Macmillan Company, '1970) pp. 115-118.

32 Al-AmidI, Al-Ihkam fI Usl a l-Ahkam , Vol. 4, p. 9218.

. .
33 c Abd al-Ha1Im Mahmd, Al-Fiqh al-Islam!,
Majallat al-Azhar 48 (November 1976) p. 1329.

34 Ahmad AmIn, Fay~ al-Kha~ir, Vol. 3, (Ca~ro:

.
Makabat al-Nahdah a1-Misriyyah, 1949) p. 173

35 -", - -
Ahmad Amin, Fa]r al-Islam (Beirut: Dar a1-Kitab
c _.
al- Arabi, 1969) p. 238.

.
36 Mahmd, Al-TafkIr al-FalsafI. p. 153

37 Qur'an 10:16.
 32

( 38 Mahmd cites this point to be refuted since it 1s

one of the bases of modernism by wh1ch the importance of
reason in the Qur'anic interpretation is justified. See
AmIn, Fajr p. 238: AmIn, Fay~ Vol. 3, p. 173: also Ma~mud,
Al-TafkIr,p. 153.

39 c Abd al-HalIm Mahmud, Wa Innahu la-Kitabun c Azlz ,

Majallat al-Azhar 48
.'
(September 1976) pp. 899, 900.

.
40 Mahmud, Al-Islam pp. 12-13

41 c Abd al~HalIm Mahmud, Muqaddimah fI Mantig

i

al-Ta~awwuf, edited together with al-Gh~zzalI's AI-Munqidh c

min al-Dalal (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo al-Misriyyah, 1952),

.
pp. 18-23; 44-47; see also Mahrnud, AI-Madrasah al-Shadhiliyyah,
pp. 324-329.

42 Mahmud, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf p. 46.

43 Ibid., pp. 9-10; Mahrnud, Al-Islam p. 41; see also

\ ~
Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, pp. 5, 9-10.

44 Mahmd, AI-TafkIr p. 241.

45 -
Ma~ud,' Manhaj al-Isla~
- -
p.26; see also Mahmud,
Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 304.

46 Mahmud, Al-Islam p. 80i Mahmud, Mawqi~ al-Islam

min al-Falsafah, p. 303 .

.
47 Ibid., p. 303; Mahmud~
- - pp,
Al-Islam 23-33.

."
 33
J'

( 48 Mahmud,
. t" a 1 - T a~awwu f , p. 16.
Man.~g

49
Ma~ud, A1-Tafkir, pp. 241-242.

50 Ibid., p. 241.

51 Mahmu-d, Man t"~g a 1 - T asawwu f , p. 16

i

52
Descartes, R. Phi1osophica1 Essays. Trans. by L.J.
Laf1eu~ <Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merri1 Educationa1 Pub1ishing,
1977), pp. 24-30.

~53 Ma~ud, Manhaj a1-I~la~, p. 92.

54 ~arymud,
-
A1-Tafkir, -
p. 64; Mahmud, Al-Islam, pp. 96, 97.

55 Ibid., pp. 96-97; Mahmud, Al-Tafkir,

- p. 64.

" 56
Ibid., pp. 64-68.

57 Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 86-90, 93.

58 Ibid., pp. 76-77, 93.

59 Ibid., pp. 52, 85; see also Marund, cMawqif al-Islam

min al-Falsafah~. p. 308.

60 Ma~ud, Al-Islam, p . 9l.

61 Ibid., p. 94.
(';
"
62 Ibid., pp. 89, 9 0, 93, 95.
 34

63 Qur' an 3: 7
(

64 Qur' an 7: 52, 11: l , 41 : 3

65 Ibn Kathir,
- - aI-Qur'an
. - al- c -
Tafsir Azim, .
Vol. 2
(Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1970), pp. 5-12; see also M~~ammad
Ab Zahrah, Ibn Taymiyyah, (Beirut: Dar 91-Fikr, n.d.),
pp. 257-293. Ta'wIl means interpretation.

66 Mahmd, Al-TafkIr, p. 218.

.
67 Ab Zahrah, Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 2,78; see also Ibn
Taymiyyah, Al-IklIl fI- 'l-Mutashabih wa al-Ta 'wIl (Misr:
.
Maktabat An:ar al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah, n.d.), p. 18.

68 Amin,
- -
Fajr al-Islam, pp. 112{ 189.

69 Mustafa CAbd al-Raziq, TamhId li-Ta'rIkh al-Falsafah

al-Islamiyyah (Cair?: katbaCat Lajnat al-Ta'lIf, 1959), p. 123.

70 CAlI samI al-Nashshar, Nash'at al-Fikr al-FalsafT

fI l-Islam, Vol. 1 (Misr: Dar al-Macrif, 1971), pp. 45-48.

71 Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a substantial work on this topie

~
by which he relates the exact traditional concept ofDrnutashabih l

and ta'wI1. According to hirn, t~~ amPtguity a~cribed to sorne

Qur'anic verses~is not about their rneanings but rather the
rea1ity of the concepts of the ambiguous verses. He justifies
!
. .
this concept by e'iting al-Hasan a1-BasrI who says, God has not
sent down any revelation unless He wanted it to be understood:

C)'
no ambiguity or the like. Consequently, Ibn Taymiyyah
"
narrates different meanings of both the mutashabih and the
ta'wI1 from which he draws a conclusion that the negated

-"- ... -~ _-------"J\

....
 ta'wIl is not the interpretation of the arnbiguous verses,
( and he denounces the opinion which regards the inclusion
of knowledge of Gad and His attributes in the mutashabih
as a tradition. See Ibn Taymiyyah, AI-IklIl, pp. 8, 19-49.

72 Mahmu-d sugges t s t 0 rep l ace th e stu d y 0 f Go dt s

existence and His att~ibutes by the s udy of Islamic mission
and what makes a competent missionary; mission
can exist without the study of the kno God s nat
understood. See Mahmud, Al-Islam, pp.

* By modernism is~eant the Egyptian acquisition of

modern civ11izat1on .as a means of prornoting t~e use of reason
in the interpretation of Islamic revelation .
....

73 Mahrnud, ,Manhaj al-Islah, pp. 5-~

,"
74 See Majallat a~zhar, Vols. 48,' 49 & 50.

75 Mahrnud, Manhaj al-I~lah, p. 7.

f
76 Amin,
- Fay~
-
al-Khatir, Vol. 3, pp. 26-28.

77 Muhammad c Abduh, Al-Islam

- wa 'l-Nasraniyyah
- ma c
al-c~lm .
wa ti-Madaniyyah, ed. by Muhammad Ra~hld Rida (Mi~r:
_ Dar al-Manar, A. H. 1383), pp. 122-124; see also Amin, Fay~,
Vol. 7, p. 205.

78 IbiQ.., p. 202.

1(

79 Qur'an 35:28, 36:40, 41:53, 67:1-4; see also Mahrnud,

cMawif al-Islam min al-Fann,. pp. 805-806; Ma~ud, M~haj
.
1
,
al-Islah, pp. 11-12. #
4, .
 36

80
Ibid., pp. 15-16.
(

,
81 Said Hlim Pasha, the ex-leader to the Religious
Reform Party was reported to have previously used this analogy
for justifying the fundamentalism of Islam. He says that
Islam, 1ike mathematics, astronomy, or chemistry cannot b~
given t~e nati~nality of any nation. See Mohammad Iqba1,
The Reconstruction of Reli.gious ThoughtO in Islam 1 (Lahore:
1
Ashraf Press, 1951), p. 156. i

82 W.M. Watt, The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe

(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1972), pp. 30-32.
1
/

83 Mahmud,
- -
Manhaj al-Islah, pp. 10, 16, 22; see also

his .articl~\I Mawqif al-Islam min al-Fa~n, pp. 601-60 2;

.
Mahmud, Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 9

84 Ma'hmd, Manhaj al-Islah, p 15,.

a
85 Mahrnd, Al-Islam, p. 16.

86 Ibid. , p. 8.

87 Mahrnd, Manhaj al-Islah, p . 7.

..
88 Ibid. , pp 16-19; as for the verss which Mahmd
cites, see Qurlan 20:100-101 & 29: 51.
.

89 Mahmud, Al-Islam, p. 28.

,
90 Ibid.,' pp. 148-150 i see also c Abd al-I}alIm Mat;md,
rbba wa Il-Islam (Cairo: MatbaCat Dar al-Jihad, 1959),
pp. 10-12.
 37

(
91 It is understood from the text 4lat Mahmd used
the term 'humanisme for the renaissance revoIt against
,
re1igious limitations on knowledge, with a revival of
.
classical learning and a stress on man's enjoying this
existence to the utmost. See Dagobert D. Runes, ed.,
Dictionary of Philosophy (New Jersey: Littlerield, Adams &
Co., 1979), pp. 131-132; cf., Mahmud, Urubba, p. 12
.
.
92 Mahmud, Al-Islam, p. 151

93 C Abd
.
al-HalIm MahmUd, AI-Fiqh al-Islam!,
.
Majallat al-Az9ar 48 (Novernber 1976), p. 1329.

94 c Abd al-HalIm Mahrnd, Al-Shar!c ah al-Is1amiyyah

fI Majlis al-Shacb,~ Majal1~t al-Azhar 48 (November 1976),
p. 137.

95 Mahrnud, Al-Islam, p. 157.

/"----
96 Ibid., pp. 10-13, 28, 76-77, 159-161; see also
Mahmud, Manhaj al-Is1h, pp. 28, 60-61.

'"
97 c Abduh , Al-Islam wa a1-Nasraniyyah, pp. 52-53.

.
98 Mahrnd, Al-Islam, p. 32; see a1so Mahrnd,
cMawqif al-Islam min a1-Fa1safah, p. 308:

99 By evo1ution 15 meant the hlstorica1 condition of

. an evo1ving society. For the source of the idea, see Amfn,
Fay~ Vol. 3, pp. 172-174; see also - c Uthman,
- Al-FikrFat~i

c al-Islam! wa al-Tatawwur (Cairo: Dar al.-Qalam, n.d.), pp. 3-7.

.-.
-,

--------.-_.~ -- " ...........

 J

38

100 Muhammad,c Abduh , Risalat al-TawhId (Cairo:

( /' .
al-Mu'tamar al-IslamI,' 1956), pp. 154-156.

.
101 Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 155-156

102 C Abduh , Al-Islam wa al-Na:raniyxah, p. 122; see'

also Iqbal, The Reconstruction, pp. 162-166.
;
{
103 Mahmd, Manhaj al-Islah,' p. 31.

104 Mahmd, Al-Islam, p. 152.

o 105 Ib'd
l. . , p. 151; Mahmd, Manhaj al-Islah, p. 31.
a

lOs': - . -
Amin, FaXd al-Khatir, Vol. 7, p. 205; see also
c - . -_. J

Uthman, Al-Fikr al-Islami, p. 249; Nabeel A. Khoury'ahd

Abdo I. Baaklini, Muhammad c Abduh : An Ideology of Development,
The Muslim World, 69 (January 1979), p. 52. -

107 Arthur J'. Ar b erry, Th e Koran Interpreted (0 x f or d",~

Oxford University, Press, 1979), 20:99-102 & 29:51.

108
. . .
Mahmd, Manhaj al-Islah, p . 19.

109 1

Ibn KathIr, TafsIr al-Qur' an, ,.~., IV, p. 536.

110 ,
.
Mahmd, Manhaj al-Islah, pp. 18-19.

III
Qur'an 42:13.
~

C 112
Qur'an 4:46, 2:75 oSe 33: 40.

--_. --~-- ----

 39

( 113 Mahmud, Manjah al-Islah, pp. 16-17 . .

4

Il,4
Ibid., p. 6.

115 Taha Husayn, Mir'at a1-Islam~(Misr: Dar al-Macarif,

i
. .
n.d.), pp. 297-311; see also A.N. Busoo1, The Deve10pment
.
of Taha Husayn's
. Is1amic Thought, The Muslim Wor1d 68
(January 1978), p. 282.

116 Ma~ud, Al-Islam, p. 32; also his article Mawqif

al-Islam min al-Fa1safah, p. 9.

1~7
c Abduh , Al-Islam wa a1-Nasraniyyah, pp. 120-127;
Muhammad cAmarah, ed~, A1-A c mal al-~ami1ah li 'l~Imam Muhammad
,cAhduh , Vol. 1 (Beirut: ~Al-Mu'assasah a1- C Arabiyyah, 1972),
, C -
pp. 179-186; see also AmIn, Fay~, Vol. 3, p. 173; uthman"
A1-Fikr al-IslamI, p. 249.

118 c Abduh , Risalah, pp. 7-8; see also c Abduh , Al-Islam

wa al-Nasraniyyah,
1
p. 51.

119 Ibid., p. 113.

120 c Abduh , Risalah, p. 10.

121 c Abd a1~Wahhab Khallaf, Al-Siyasah al-SharCiyyah

(Cairo: Dar al-Ansar, 1977), pp. 34-36:

122 Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 98-99, 101.,

....
c 123 Ab 'i-Wafa al-GhunaymI al-TaftazanI, Madkhal ila
~ ~1-Tasawwuf al-IslamI (Cairo: Dar a1-Thaqafah, 1974), p. 8.
i

~ _. - -----_. - - _ . _ - - or-
 40

~~~124 Mahmd; Al-Islam, p.91.

( j

125 A1-TaftazanI, Madkhal ila al-Tasawwuf, pp. 241-25~.

J
..,.

.,

, _~ l
(
1

- ~~~------ ...............
.-
- -._- -

i.
 CHAP.TER II

~~ 1
FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHY AND c ILM AL-KALAM!

, 1
Criticism of Philosophy

It is very important to summar~ze Mahmd's
1
concept o~ philosophy before analyzing his criticism of

it. To define philosophy, he reviews many definitions

provided by ~uslim philosophers and finally adopts one of

them. He admires 'one particular Greek dfinition cited

by al-KindI and al-FarabI which says, Philosophy 15 tbe

preference or love of wisdom.l He further explains that

the desire for wisdom,leads to a persistent endeavour enabling

# J ~.

one to .grasp the knowledge of God. 2 This interpretation'is

~

3
actually derived from al-FarabI's thought.

As this definition does not fully correspond to

Mahmd's concept of philosophy, he gives_ what he believes

to be a more comprehensive definition,' namely, Philosophy

is the rational discussio~of metaphysics, morals, and

epistemology: rationality and spirituaIlty . 4 On account

of al-Sak_awI's ascription of thi~ definition to Aristotle

( and its use in the works of the Muslim philosophers, Mahmud

- 41

- ... - --------~,.- Q,.

. ~ ,
--------- ~~
 42

5
expects philosophy' to function as religion does. Though
(
he denounces the Muslim philosophers' attempt to harmonize

philosophy with religion,6 his speculation here is similar

to theirs, because the basis of philosophical discussio~ about

God is different from that of religion. In other words, the

religious discussions about God are a means of establishing

faith or irnposing 'oughts and should-nots' on man. On tfie

other hand, philosophy studies God only to grasp the unlversal

notion of" being. This fact seems to be the basis of

Gusdorf's differentiation between religion and philosophy

when-he says that,

La sig~ification philosophique de Dieu parait J

ainsi solidaire de l'exigence d'une mtaphysique ~
./"
ouverte. Elle ne renvoie pas une autre rgion du
rel que l'homme et le monde, mais plutt cette
rgion du monde et de l'homme que la science
n'habite pas. L'ide de Dieu ne dsigne pas un
systme des systmes; elle consacre dans l'chec
mme des systmes, une source de vrit. La premire
. lecture du rel ne suffit pas, la lecture du rel
tel qu'il est, ou plutt i l n'y a pas de rel tel
qu'il est, dans une sorte de signification littrale.

r
Le monde n'existe pas en lui-mme et pour lui-mme;
la surnature n'est pas en dehors de la nature:
elle s'identifie la nature elle-mme, incapable ::
de commencer ni de s'achever dans les dterminations
contrles de la onnaissance positive.
Ainsi le paradoxe de Dieu pourrait se situer
en dernire analyse dans le fait que le philo-

c sophe est incapable de parler de Dieu, mais

-
:_----~---------=--~,---~....---~-
 43

oblig d'en parler sans cesse, de .se

( rfrer lui pour ordonner tout instant
ses perspectives. Dpouill de toute.
imagerie religieuse, le Dieu des philosophes
dsignerait l'esprance totalitaire de
l'unit, irralisable et pourtant toujours
souhaite, la reconciliation des valeurs dans
la consonnanc des intentions et des actions,
le fondement et le gage de toute cornmunion. 7
..
Having ignored this fact, Mahrnd's notion of philosophy

implies a positive attitude which is contrary to his

repudiation of rationalism. 8 Of course, this attitude is

not deliberat' but he maintains it in order to affirm the

o originality of Islamic philosophy. 9 On" account of

"
c Abd al-Raziq's inclusion of theqlogy and jurisprud~nce in

the scope of Islamic philosophy, 10 Mahmd" f inds the or igin

J - Il
of Islamic philosophy in the Qur'an, 9ut this gives no

justification for his criticism.

.
As for the abject of Mahmd's criticisrn, the geheral

themes of his argument and his mention of sorne philosophers---

like Aristotle, Descartes and others--- suggest that his

attacks ~re directed against philoso?hy in general while

th~prefatory notes of sorne of his works confine them to

Islarnic philosophy.12 Besides, his decision to assess'

13
philosophy in the light of Islamic precepts indicates that

his arguments are developed only as an ...apology for establishing

faith.

.~
~s ~e .
primary concern of, his thought is method,

.. --- -----.--"11,:----
"
 44 ',#

Mahmd denounces the philosophical view which regards reason as

( , ,
the primary or only method capable of grasping metaphysical

truths. He considers the lack of unanirnity among philosophers

to be proof that there i5 no certitude l.n their conclusions.

To hirn, the differences which intrinsically characterize

c 1
human perception pro~e that phi1osophy cannot grasp meta-
physics .14

Due to lack of originality, the themes of Mahrnd 1 s

argument disqua1ify him as a true critic. He tends to revive

the criticism9 previously 1evelled against philosophy by

al-GhazzalI , (d. 505/1111), Ipn 'Tayrniyyah Cd. 728/1328) ,

~

al~suytI (d.91l/1S05) and others, in order to ~afeguard

h,is concept of methodology in Islam,

,
though this very concept

is derived from such predecessors. This will shortly be

justified in the analysis of his argument. ,

" '.
It ls very important to note that the failure Mahmd
1
ascribes to philosophy is only in regard to the philosophers'
~ ~

claim that metaphY,sical truths can be rationally knElwn without

the aid of revelation .15 Due to the incoherence which

characterizes a large, part of his writings, and due to the

'-
repeti tion of themes, not only within one book but throughout

his entire works, his 'wr i tings have diminished usefulness. ,;

'r,
i
ne denounces many philosophical theories such as existen-

tialism, the theory of conscience in moral philosophy, and

Cartesianism, rnost of which he inadequately reviews. 16 He

c rarely cites references for the sources of "his ide as . 17

generality- of his criticisrn makes it difficult to deterrnine

The
 1
45

what are the primary or secondary sources to consu1t ?in order

(
to rev;iew his works.

It has been stated earlier that Mahmud's arguments

tend to be a repetition of the criticisms of~ the early Muslim

thinkers. My intention is not to deny his contribution, but

ratller to show how greatly he is indebted to others. One

instance of this can be observed in c0It1paring his criticism

with that of Ibn Taymiyyah and a1-suy~I in the latter' s

works on log ic . 18

Regardless of the origin of his argument, he postulates

his criticism on what he sees as certain shortcomings in

..
bot'h the method and subject-matter of philosophy. "From the

persisten~e of differences within rationalism, he deduces

that the philosophers' pursuit of met~physics is a se arch

for an impossibili ty. 19 He illustrates this point in his

account of philosophical disputes when he says, because

the ability to follow the straight path cornes only from God,

not from hurnan effort, -'20 dhalik

-
~ itt~a
-c al-tarig
- al-sawi~
-

o
- min Allah,
tawfiq - -
wa-laysa huwa min iktisab al- c abd. Besides,

he explains how the philosophica1 approach to metaphysics has
~
"
given r ise to innfmerable schools of thought. For instance,
scepticism or dogmatism, he says, is we1l established in

addition ta other schools which advocate anthropomorphism,

incarnation or pantheism, etc. 21 He attributes a negative

opinion, similar to his own, to Socrates whom he aiso reports

in another place to have discussed divinity, though he does

not cite a source for either statement. 22 Above aIl, the real
 46

/
basis of Mahmud' s criticism is his faith by which he forros

his method. He maintains that aIl metaphysical issues

mentioned in the Qur 1 an should be included in the scope of

the ambiguous verses which, he believes, are known ta God

alone. Therefore, any hurnan understanding r of 'them can be

only through divine guidance. 23

In one of hi~ articles published in Majallat al-Azhar,

Mahmd enumerates certain points where he focuses upon the

failu~e of philosophy, narnely:

l. Philosophy lacks a cri terion by which i t

~an distinguish what is rlght from what is

wrong. He says, that is, there is no criter ion

for philosophy (philosophical activities) .~4

2. 'Probability (Le., doubt) is inseparable from

1
philosophical conclusions, because they rest

'solely on relative perceptions. He rnaintains

that neither Aristotelian logic nor Cartesian

11
method can remedy this defect. 25

3. The persistence of philosophical disputes

1 i

1
.~

about rnetaphysics for two thousand seven hundred

years without any unanimous conclusion indicates

either of two things: that either philosophy has

failed in metaphyslcs or that metaphysical

problems cannot be rationally solved. 26

4. Logic has failed to guide the human rnind to infallible

thinking. He justifies this statement by noting the

1

lack of unanimity among philosopheris. 27

 47

In response to the,first point, it rnay be argued that

( 1

there is in philosophy a variety of methods used as criteria

for distinguishing what is right from what is wrong.

Aristotelian logic has proven to be the most influential

"

and durable method of inquiry in philosophy. Wi th the

Cartesian rnethod, God' s existence is presurnably made provable

)

by reasoning. The Baconian inductive rnethod, by which many

scientific discoveries have been made, cannot be swept

away by Mahmd' s mere declaration of its failure. Although

\\ none of these methods has escaped serious criticisrn, th~y

have aIl survived. Simply because they have been repudiated

by many crities, Mahmud erroneously assumes that the se

methods no longer have any relevance. Since points land 4

concern philosophie method, both are discussed together as

point one, and his four points become three. Mahmud makes '

no adequate crit.iaism of th Baeonian inductive metQod, he

28
only deelares its failure without proof. Due ta its

importance in philosophy, logie will be treated after his

cri ticism of Descartes' method.

The basis of Cartesianism rests on the fact that

every idea must be self-evident or justifiable in the light

of reason: otherwise it cannot escape an absolute doubt or

denial. 29 This th~ory, aecording to Mahrnd, automatically

.
disqualifies propheey, the main channel of religiQus e>perience.
::
Therefore, he" repudiates Cartesianism as a method because

it dismisses intuition. He justi:Eies his objection tq this ;

method by invoking the authority of the previous criticisms

)
!
1

~l
 48

30
levelled against it.
(
In fact, Mahmud's notion of Cartesianism corresponds

to that of sorne philosophers, 'especially Ayer's analysis

of scepticism briefly stated, What the philosophical sc~ptic

calls in question is not the way in which we apply our

;. - 31
standards of proof, but these standards themselves. That

iS1 intuition in its common meaning cannot escape the denial

of the philosophical sceptics according to Mahmud, but

n Descartes' concession of intuition may disprove this inter-

, 32
pre t a t lon. The crux arises from the divergent meanings

given to the word 'intuition'. In Mahmud's thought, the word

bas Ir ah translated as 'intuition' 'i~ used as a synonym of

il~am 'inspiration' or kashf 'mysti;al il;bmination' ~y

which its significance matches the contemporary lexcal

mea~ing of 'intuition' .33

On the other hand, Descartes seemingly upholds the
/
1
1
obsolete or archaic meaning of the word in order to establish

his method. He defines intuition as The undoubting conception

of an unclouded and attentive mind, which springs from the

light of reason alone.34 The idea of subjecting intuition

to rationality is the point on which these authors disagree,

because the plausibility of thi~~ Cartesian concept to Mahmud -

,
will leave no room for revelation or Prophetie experience.

This inference is evi~ent in the third rul~of Descarte~'

\

Rules for the Direction of Mind, though he states that the

knowledge yielded by revelation bears more certitude than

does the one acquired through rationality. He says::

 49

.
And these two methods (intuition and.deduction)
(
are the rnost certain paths to knowledge, . . ,
but this nevertheless does not prevent us from
b~lieving that those things which are divinely
revealed are more certain than any other
knowledge, since faith in them, tp whatever
extent they are obscure, is not an act of the
intellect, but of the will. 35

The extract shows that Descartes, like Mahmud, accepts the

basis of religious experience but that it is not rationally

verifiable. It indicates the Cartesian distinction between

knowledge and faith which, on the one hand, tends to correspond

to Ma~ud's view if metaphysics is excluded from the ~ope

of knowledge. But with the phrase which springs from the

light of reason alone, Descarte's makes no distinction between

intuition and'deduction. 36 Another crucial point i5 whether

metaphysics can be rationally discussed or note As a

philosopher who regards it as a science, Descartes would

not accept any other rneans for grasping metaphysical truths. 37

The obscurity which Descartes ascribes to revelation ls to

disqualify both the method and subject-matter of religion,

for without confiding in its method, the subject-matter cannot

be noteworthy. If religion is truly the source of the central

issues in metaphysics,38 it will be ridiculous that prophecy

which is competnt enough to discover these issues can be

" ' .
disqualified in studying thern.

Mahmd, as" a religious thinker, perceives the rational

pursuit of metaphysics as blasphernous or indeed as a

 50

39
contradiction of religion. Though syrnpathy with Sufisrn
(
cannot be denied as basic to his thinking, it is a traditional
.
v~ew
.
~n
l sam.
l 40 Furtherrnore, he says that the remoteness

of attaining a unanimous conclusion will perrnanently sustain

metaphysical problems and change the whole process into a

mental exercise instead of being an endeavour to lead to

41
faith. Descartes! concession to religious teachings 1s

.
not weIl appreciated by Mahmud who characterizes it as
42
a means of flattering the Church.

Of course, this interpretation is obvious in Descartes'

extract just cited, and Ma~ud's rem~rk merits certain validity.

In that quotation, Descartes contradicts himself by recommending

the acceptance of teachings established or discovered by a

method t~at he dismisses. His classification of faith as

an act of will alone is also questionable, because the

)
possibility of an independent function of this faculty

without involv-ing intellect needs to be proved. However,

~

the content of this quotation implies a dismissal not only of

revelation but also Descartes' faith in it. With the

..0
inconsistence of the Cartesian concept with the contemporary

lexIcal meaning of intuition, Mahmd' s criticism merits

certain validity, but it does not end t~e reign of

Cartesianism.

Because of the importance of logic in philosophYJ

Mahmd believes that to refute i t will put an end to

phi1osophYi therefore he criticizes 10gic thrQugh both its

( r::." \,

structure and function. As he divides it into induction

c <1
 51

'\
and deduction, he explains how sole1y dependent upon senses
(
is the inductive 10gic in addition to the probability or
uncertainty that characterizes philosophical conclusions

in general. He,justifies this notion by citing the constant

changes which dominate the scientific conclusions drawn on

the basis of induction. For instance, he cites the conclU"s~n

"
which expresses that every metal expands when it is heated,'

restricting its validity to another discovery that might

.
con f lrm or d lsprove
' 1. t 4 3. ' Due t 0 th lS
. wea k ness, h e con f lnes
.

--
the utility of inductive logic to physics, but this conclusion
.
needs to be reconciled with Mahrnud' s other statement. That

, is, he says tha t the study of sciences is recornmended tn the

Qur'an, so that the scientific conclusions would c)nfi m the

spiritual aspect of Islam. 44 This attitude implies the

usefulness of science which is always based on induction.

Moreover, he links the connotations of the Qur'anic verses

cited on this issue with the modern arguments in philosophy

j::>y which his inte':rpretation corresponds to that of al-CAqqad. ~5

Therefore, the inductive method is indispensable in knowing

.
God according to Mahmd himself. Besides, both al-Bahl and,

al-Nashshar affirm experience as a basis of theological

arguments in Slam; the latter even identifies its absence in

Aristotelian logic as a major cause for the Muslim c'riticism
46
of it.
Concerning deductive 10gic, Mahmd declares that

it i5 a victim of the same defect he ascribes to induction.

( , 1
Since deductive arguments are' made up of inductive conclusions, ,

'. 52

Mahmd contends, neither of the two can work without

( ..
se~sation.47 It is true that deduction starts from induc-

tive conclusions, but this relationship should not confine

the forrner'~ function to the rnaterial world only. In other

words, the concrete object is necessary only in the process

of drawing the inductive conclusions which consequently

become universal ideas. From this point onwards, deduction

starts function. Randall and Buchler explain this notion

better when they say: The philosopher is concerned with

'experience' and 'knowledge, , 'meaning t and 'truth'; with

'purpose' and 'God,' 'nature' and 'rnind.,48

On the other ,hand, if the ernpiricist viewpoint of

subjectlng deduction to sensation is the basis of Mahrnud's

objection, al-KindI has divided intelligible thlngs into the

concrete [hayulanIJ and the intangible [la-haylanIJ. 49 This

classification entails that man possesses external and internaI

senses. The former are the five senses whose function requires

a ,concrete object; and the internaI sense is the 'mind'

which functio'n's, as expl9-ined by al-KirkI, without involving

50
any material sensation. It 15 verifiable also in,the works

of modern philosophers that mind can, and dbes, conternplate )

its own operations such as perception, doubting, and willing. 51

AlI these illustrations require further supplementation for

Mahmd's concept of deduction.

The next point is his assumption that the logicians

do not necessitate the truth of their syllogistic premises,

(
pr~vided they are accepted by the argumentators. In this
 ,
53

regard, Mahmd presumes that deductive logic sometimes

leads to two valid conclusions on one issue: one of which

will be true while the other false at the same time. He

illustrates this claim with the following syllogisms,

~. Much knowledge leads to individuai independence.

Everything that leads to individuai independence
is harmfui to the cornrnunity.
Therefore much knowledge is harmfui to the
communi ty .

2. Much knowledge Ieads to social solidity.

Everything that leads to social ~olidity

is beneficial to the cornrnunity.

Therefore much k~~wledge is beneficial-to
.. . the cornmunity

Hence, he repudiates deductive Iogic aslan authoritative

.
52
method of acquiring metaphysicai knowledge.

The claim that truth is not require.d for the validity

of the premisses of syllogism is not testable in logic.

Regrdiess of whatever shortcoming ~e might observe in or

ascribe to deductive logic, the fact that logic was basically

invented to guide the human mind to infailible thinking is

inompatible with the a?ceptance of faise premisse In

that case, there would be no, point in the invention of terms'

,
such as simple apprehension, analysis, deduction, and the

principles of syllogisme Actually, the validity of syllogism

or the conclusions of deduction is either material or formaI.

On the basis of the mutual identity and non-identity of the

(
terms employed in the" premisses of a syllogism, the major or

-
 "

54

material validity of a conclusion entails the truth of its

(
premisses. 53 FormaI validity, which applies to Mahrnd's .
notion, ,is the efficient process of deduction achieved through
54 Having
keeping to the rules of the categorical syllogism.
,-
postulated his criticism on formaI validity which is just

one aspect of the logical validity of a deductive conclusion,

his view appears to be inaccurate. .

His first example is

materially invalid, beaause the terms - 'iqdividual

independence' and 'harmful' - are not identical with each

other. Freedom of thought, termed as individual independence

by Mahmd, is more likely to provide various social solutions

rather than to harm society.

Another charge against the syllogistic system,

according to Mahmd, is the circular nature of its arguments, ,

which he considers to be the interdependence inherent between

the premisses and the conclusion; for instance, he gives the

following syllogism:

, ,
.
Muhammad is a man 1
Every man speaks
Therefore Muhammad speaks. 1
1

H~ explains that the knowledge of Muhammad's ability to

speak .( i. e., "the conclusion) is derived from the major premiss 1

!
while the content of the major premiss is also known from

the conclusion. Furthermore, he says that the speaker cannot

attribute the faculty of speaking to e~ery man unless he is

certain that Muhammad possesses it, and this argument proves

:...
j
 \
55

t o be .
c~rcu
l ar. 55 What Mahmd means by the conclusion
(
being derived from the major premiss is not clear. If

he means that without the major premiss there would be no

conclusion, this is indisputable. Concerning the philosophi-

cal definition of a circular evidence, it is Proof or"

evidence involving premisses which assume the conclusion

li,
which "is to b~ established. 56 With this concept, neither

the major nor the minor premiss of the above syllogism

assumes its conclusion. It is untrue that ascribing the

faculty of speaking to every man rests on Muhammad r s possesion

of .t
~,u b t th e OppOSl.. t e ~s
. t rue. 57

Finally he argues that the conclusion of deductive

logic is supposed to be absolutely new, that 1s, as the

derivation of the unknown from the known, but this is not

the case. Since the conclJsion is included in the premisses,

/
what novelty is obtainable! through deduction?58 The

logicians' definitiorl of deductive inference is a good answer

to this question. 'According to McCall, it is an act of

the" mind in which, from the relation of two terms to a

third term, we infer (i.e., understand and affirm) tpeir

V relation to each other. 59 In the ab ove syllogism, the new

idea obtained through deduction lies in proving Muhammad as

a man by his possession of the faulty of speaking which

is, by experiende, an essential quality of every other man.

.
Overall, Mahmd can refute neither Cartesianism nor

Aristotelian logic, ~hile the emotional basis of his argu-

ment has made his criticism ~ubjective and invalide

 56

The second point is the probability of philosophical

( '60
conclusions which Mahrnd consider.s to be a weakness.

Having believed in the oneness of truth, he argues that

,
pM,hosophical conclusions cannot aIl be true nor can any

of them claim an irrefutable validty. 61 This view needs

verification through contrasting Ma1;md' s c0!lcept of

probability with that of philosophy. Again, Y'it raises a'

question about whether or not philosoph~rs admit that aIl

their 'conclusions are probtble.

Philosopher~ believe that any conclusion drawn on the

.
basis of 'first principles'
,
is necessarily certain and cannot

be denied metaphysical ~erti tude. 62 This view corresponds

to al-Kindi' 5 notion of intellectual perception, [i-drak

al-Caql], the certit\lde of which he does not only a'ffirm but

which, he also believes, lnvolves no sensation. 63 Nevertheless,

philosophers assert the possibility of errer in clairns based

on experience or induction by which rnany cone lusions prove

to be probable. This should no:t imply conformi ty between

the philosoph1cal notion and Mahmud's usage of 'probability'.

In philosophy, probability s:i;.qnifie$ two meanings: first,

there is 'mere probability' whicn i5 a synonym of 'opinion'. 64

Another meaning is 'likelihood' which, according to Russell,

15 neither knowledge nor error, but what 15, or ls der1ved

from, 50mething which has not

, the highe'st degree of self-
65
evidence. Thus, the statements based on physical law

or experience are probable; though their bases ~ay entail

certi tu'de, the possibili ty of error sus tains thern as probable

1
---~-~-- - ',~ . _----J
 Mahmd's works a~ probability, literally # n l f i e s 'me:tre

opinion' or 'doubt', and it is sometl:'iiie~- used to mean

67 ' - '.
k nowle d ge, but -Mahmud uses lt mostly for the first
0

rneaning. This remark is apparent in his' statement that

it (philosophy) is indeed probable because it is not

possible - for the lack of criteria - to distinguish what

68
is right from what i~ wrong. Likewise, in his attempt

to ascertain the persistence of "philosophical ~ontroversies;

he says, Since there is no means of certitude ab6ut philo,-

, l , 69
sophical, issues, disputes are permanently inevitable.

If MaI;md would not. be subjective, he. primariIy needs

~ to disprove logically the philosophical concept of probability

"
before.he can classify i t as a fauit. EventuaIly, he ta~s

this step by deducing,~he futility of .probable conclusions

from the successive refutations of the philosophers' opinions,

of one another on the same issues.

70
This rem~rk seems
'. a
inadequate, be'Cause refutation does not necessarily imply

the inaccuracy of the 'refuted opinions, but only disagreement

l'

between two or more writers', wh"ich ls natural.

Considering the persistence of philosophicai contro-

versies in metaphysic~, Mahmd's third point ,is that metaphysical

problems cannot be' unanimously solved bl' reason'" and that

revelation is the only solution~71 ~bis concltlsion~~vokes <, ,

three points: (i)

the futility of philosophical,conclusions,
. -
(ii) the ins~lubility of ~etaphysical problems by rationality,
il

.... jIIf . . . . . ... ;,tf~

,1
 58

and (iii) the recommendation of revelation as the only

(
authority. First of aIl, these points indicate that Mahmd
.
attributes the persistence of controversies in philosophy
to defects, ne assumes inherent, in philosophie methods.
Though the philosophers concede man's fallibility, they insist
"

that the 'first principles' on which their rnetaphysieal

studies rest are the simplest truths. Since their methods
spring from these principles, the y ,are in no way defective. 72
\

The persistence of philosophieal problems is indisputable,

but this characteristic, to the' philosoPhtrs " does not hinder
the utility 0f their conc+usions beeause the dilernma arises
from the nature10f philosophieal problems.
Aecording to Zaydan, the persistence of philosoph~cal
, .
problems arises from four things. First, he says that the
cornplexity of philosophical issues d:mands nurnerous solution~

not just on the part of a number of philosophers but of " \

phnosophers of different eras. .s~ond, if Philosoph; .,iS-~-
-'

truly an expression of a philosopher' s time, the natural .

development of hurnan life compels it to be different from one
'philosopher 1 s time to another J s. 'the variety of phenom~na
that philosophers live / as the thrd factor, entails different .
responses to the issues discussed in, philosophy. Fin.ally,
what William, James terrn~d as 'personal temperament' or
'e,mo.tional constitution' by which a philosopher' s way of
thinking is tarned undoubtedly eontr ibutes to th persistence
. p h 1.. l osop h y. 7 3
o f 'd'l.versl.. t y l.n
.( "

Mahmud must be aware that the phenomenolo9ical,~

~ .
 59 ~

differences for which he criticizes modernity in Egypt is

(
~ also a characteristic of a philosophical proble~: However,
,4 f
he treats this poin~and that of the complexity of meta-
74
physical issues in a way that supports his arguments.

In other words, n m~es these points a basis frorn which

75
he clothes rnetaphysics with a suprarational nature. Though
/'

Mahrnud does not cite the origin of this view, it has been

upheld by Ren Gunon whose influence on Mahmud will be

76
summarized in the next chapter. As it has been stated in

the preceding chapuer, the controversies propounded-about

the basis of this view, i.e., the concept of mutashabih and

77
the negated ta'wIl in the Qur'an, sustain it as an opinion.

.
Regardless of the basic qifference between Mahmd and Kant,

the latter also disqu,alifies reason as a method of acquiring

metaphysical knowledge when he says,

It is imp~ssible to arrive at ultimate

reality of the Universe because phenomena
are endless and the accumulation of pheno-
mena is interminable; the task cannot be
fully accomplished by reason, which must deal
with insoluble problems and the transcendental 1
illusions accepted by reason as if they were
settled truths.7~

Though he sees that reason is incompetent to establish

absolutely either affirmative or negative conclusions on

79
metaphysics, Kant believes it to be an unavoidable enterprise.

.
This attitude, to Mahmud, is awkward. He also opines that
80
metaphysical truths are knowable through SufI illumination-.
r""'--"-~""""---~-----~-- ___ _____
~

60

( .
Here Mahrnud contradicts himself, because with the Neo-
Platonic basis of the SfI method, reason is indispensable. 81
Again, if the Qur'an has negated knowledge of the ambiguous
verses in which Mahmd includes the Islamic metaphysics,
he needs to prove its possibility through Sufism in the
reYelation~ The futility of the philosophical conclusions,
educed from Ma~ud's argument on probability, is disputed
with the cumulative body of well-grounded knowledge which
philosophy has built. 82 Finally, none of~the three points
\

on which Mahrnud postulates the failure of philosophy proves

.
ta be plausible. In spite of the weakness of his criticism,
the zeal f~r achieving his aim has stripped his argument of __
objectivity in most cases.

Criticism of c I1m al-Kalam

As Ma~d~s theological writings are not intended

..
for a scholarly purpose, 83 he did not define Kalam,
- but the
definition of this term is indispensabie for the analysis
of his criticism. Meanwhile his concept of Kalam as a
discipline will be derived from both his understanding
of the current forrn.of this subject 84 and his study of
al-GhaZZ\~I's evaluation of Kalam. 85 Before doing this,
one or tw~ of the definitions of some.Muslim thinkers may
.-/'
lead us to the appropriate conception of Kalam, though these
definitions are not aIl consistent with one another.
Al-FarabI (d.339/949), though not a theclogian,
(
cffers a definition which is often cited by many scholars
 61

as the oldest accessible definition of Ka1am, and it reaqs

(
as fo11ows:

e'
A science which enab1es a man to procure
the v~ctory of the dogmas and actions laid
down by the Legislator of religion, and
r~fute aIl opinions c6ntradicting them. 86

Ibn Khaldn (d.796j1406) says nothing different except

that he adds the phrase through rational proofs, by

-
wpich he specifies the method of Ka1am. 87 According to these

two authorities, Kalam primarily asserts the doctrine's stated

in the Qur'an and Prophetie tradition, and refutes opinions

contradicting them through rational arguments. This meaning

i5 identical with the connotation o~ the definitions of the

real Muslim theologians such as al-jI (d. 756/1355) "

al-TahanawI (d.1155/1745) and others. 88 This illustration

shows that what a Muslim theologian calls in question is not

the origination of the doctrines, for this has been done by

revelation, but the study of the already established creeds

and their defense against foreign attacks through rational

argument~.89 It is Gardet's use of this fact as a means of,

making Kalam inferior to Christian-theology that, l understand,

BadawI disputes. The latter's claim that Kalam has existed

r
as a discipline studying the creeda1 issues such as the con-

cept of faith in Islam, before a need for defense warranted,

sounds coherent. Because Kalam is only a development of -~

what was previously known as usl al-dIn or al-figh al-akbar,

though both its method and subject-matter were somehow
 62

arnended.
90
Ib~ Taymiyyah says,
(
Henee, it is clear that "'the religious
principles (i.e., theological doctrines)
in the sight of God, His Messenger, and
the believers are inherited only from
(the teachings of) the prophet. 9l

This statement and what Frank says that The speculative

activity of Kalam is essentialIy the exegesis of these texts,

sc., the Koran and the Sunna,92 disprove Watt's assumption

that the creedal authority in Islam is based on the decisions

93
of the theologians. This assurnption seems a deduction from

Goldziher's expression that Consensus i5 the highest authority

in aIl questions of religious theory and practice (in Islam),94.

but consensus is applicable in Islam only when an

not clearly discussed in the Qur'an or explained i

~
C
tradition. 95 Even though the Mu tazilite5 are rernarkably
~

extreme in the use of reason as a prirnary method, this is just

a methodic development for the interpretation of Qur'an, and

. .
96
their faith actually precedes this act. ,Foreign influences

on the development of Kalarn are undeniable, but the precedence

of Islamic faith over speculations in Kalam disproves Cook's

view which declares it as a borrowing from Christian theology.97

AlI these, explanations represent only the concept

of Kalam in MuCtazilism and Ashcarism; nevertheless, sorne

~arlier theologians were reported to have maintained that the

1
1
1
(, scope of Islamie theology eoncerns only the q4estion of faith
98
regarding the oneness of God, His names and attributes.
 ..
63

They believed that man's response to the teachngs of the Qur'an

( on the creedal issues should not exceed understanding and
confirming them; so they did not give reason any place in
theology.99 With regard to the subject-matter of Kalam,
the same view is maintained by al-TahawI (d.32lj93l) but
he sees reason as an indisputable aid for the study of

..
cP
Revelational texts . lOO
None of the preceding methods suits the Batinls and
the SfIs; the former accept only the interpretations of a
guided Imam as the right path to religious kno~ledge, while
i
the Sufis advocate mystical ecstasy [kashfJ as 'the only
way to the knowledge of the Unseen, but neither is free from
rationa1i.ty. 101
In his arguments, Mahrnud appears as if he w'ere an
adherent of the Traditional school, but many points that will
be elucidated in the forthcoming chapter, strongly associate
him with Sufism. He adopts al-GhazzalI's view by reviving
the latter's definition of the Muslirn theologians as the
people who claim the use of reason. 102 Mahmud
- deduces from

al-GhazzalI's expression that Kalam has served its purpose;

therefore its early traditional method must now be restored.
1
He adopts also al~GhazzalI's dissatisfaction with the conclu-
sions drawn through Kalam, and assumes that his criticism
of rationality is consistnt with the latter's view. He
-'"
maintains that Tahafut -
al-Falasifah was written not to denounce

the concepts but the rational method of 'the philosophers,

because sorne of thir concepts conform to those of religion. lD3
 64

This seerns to be a misconception, because the only method

(
al-GhazzalI employed in levelling his attacks against the

philosophers' concepts was reason, and he would be self-

-'
contradictory to condernn the sarne method he used. I04 This

rernark is weIl clarified by Ab 'RIdah when he says that

al-GhazzalI refuted only the Greek rnetaphysics which, he

believed, rests on an inadequate basis, and his weapon is

none other than reasoning. Ab RIdah disproves Macdonald's

understandiQg that al-GhazzalI ' . . . consfders reason as a weapon-

to be used for dismissing aIl confidence in rationality,

and that indisputable knowledge is attainable only through

SufI ecstasy.' To prove the inaccuracy of this view,

Ab RIdah affirms the SufI denunciation of reason but he

maintains that al-GhazzalI confines this denunciation to the

mutakallimun's concept of rationality, i.e., argumentation.

He cites, as evidence, what al-GhazzalI says,

Having been praised by God, the light of the

int~rior intuition, by which Almighty God
and the truthfulness of Hi~ Messengers are
.
known",--cannot be denounced'l" If it were
bIamewrt~y what then would be praiseworthy?
If (one says) revelation, one.has to. explain 1
by what rnethod the authenticity of revel~tion

is known. If it is known by a blameworthy

and untrustworthy intellect, revelation
also would be blarneworthy.lOS

Moreover, Mahmud's view is disproven ~ Part Three of Tahafut

-
ai-Falasifah which was separately published as Mi c ~ar
- al- c Ilm,
 /
\

65

because this work indicates that al-GhazzalI never lost

( confidence in reason. l06 The understanding of many scholars
j

such as CAzqul, ~alIba and others is that al-GhazzalI

opined that confidence in reason cannot be established by

reason itself, and that it needs to be aided by spirituality

,
1n 0 bt"
a1n1ng cer t 1' t u d e. 107 Even the light claim~d by al-
GhazzalI to have"been thrown into his mind, according to

~alIba, signifies only an inner satisfaction with the validity

of the rational conclusion.

rOB

Mahmud's arguments ~m~lY that he regards Kalarn as a

later development for a defensive purpose, bpt his main

.
concern is the denunciation of the method and the intellectual-

tendencies characterizing th speculative activity of this

discipline. Postulating his arguments on the question of

mutashabih and the negated ta'wIl in the Qur'an, he critcizes

not only the' authority but the entire use of reason in

109
Islamlc theology. By doing so, he confuses the rational

method of Kalam,with Aristotelian logic when he says ~

Reason is the basic method in

MuCtazilism, and the criteria of the
rationalists in general spring from both
inductive and deductive logic. 110

Though his criticism of logic has b~en reviewed

above, Mahmud's correlation of Kalam's method with logic

is questionable. He may have derived it from one of three

( sources: either from the fact that Aristotelian logic was

c
known te Muslims sinee the lifetime of Ibn al-Muqaffa , or
 66

from the early MuCtazilite consultation of Greek philosophical

(
works,lll or from ai-GhazzalI's expression that the iogical

systems were not different from the rational method of the

112
Muslim theologians. The criticism advanced against

, Aristotelian logic by the earlyjMuslim theologia~s and jurists

'dismisses this latter claim. 113 ' probably, this is one of

the points for which al-GhazzalI was criticized for mixing

114
logic with the Islamic sciences. It is true that philo-

sophical arguments such as ontological and teleological ones

were candidly borrowed by the early MuCtaziiites in establishing

the existen1ce of God,115 but their implementation of these

principles did nOt conform tO logical syllogism. 116 On

account of his presumption that he has(dismissed logi,

Mahmd ignor~s the Qur'anic basis of MuCtazilism by , , which

.
the adherents
. of this school
. were declared as zealous
apologists for Islam,l17 and' he repudiates their works as

having no basis in.the Islamic creed. 118

" It is undeniable that the early mutakallimn

benefited from logic in the formative process of their

~

me~hod as precisely'stated by Gibb, These thinkers [MuCtazilitesJ

developed; by the aid of Greek logic, new theological systems

in order to defend their dogmatic positions,119 but

the y did not adopt it.

With regard to the primacy of reason over r~~~tion

in Kalam, Mahmd's view is sometimes basea on t~~agree-

. -----
(, ments which always follow reasoning because

nature of human perception. As it has been

 67

preceding chapter, this consequence is unavoidable in human

( thinking whether its basis is revelation or reason.
\

.
Like Mahrnd, many scholars such as al-Ahwani, CAzqI

and others, also note the extreme character of the MuCtazilite

t
use of reason, but not aIl of thern classify it as an innova-

tion or a deviation. Due to the Qur'anic basis of this school,

al-AhwanI does not level a vigorous attack, similar to that

of Mahmd, against its method. He says that, though the \

Muslim theo1ogia~s interpret revelation by reasoning, the~

regard the Qur'an as the basis of aIL their speculative

120
activities. The arbitration of reason on which Mahmd
\ - 121
postulates his condemnation of Kalam may be part1y

justifiable, but the fact that one has to believe in the ,

existence of God before he believes in revel~tion

- 122
justifies Kalam's method in the initial stage. However,

Mah~ud interprets its method as an innovation or a

.
deviation by citing sorne traditions, viz:

Obey and do not innovate, for the per~ition

of the nations before you was but a result

o~ their innovations in religion and deviation
-from the traditions of,their Prophets by
which they went and led (others) astray.

Obey and do not innovate, for you have

been provided with what is enough.

The Prophet said that Gabriel (the Archangel),

peace .be upon him, s~id: 0 Muhammad, your
1

followers will differ from one another after you.

( The Prophet asked for the solution, and he
said: the Book of God (i.e., Qur'an) .123
 68

The connotation of both the first and the second traditions

( /

, does not apply to Kalam for ?everal,~~sons. In Arabic

lexicons, bidcah signifies 'a novelty, or an innovation,

in reli~ion, after it has been completed, , or 'an action at

variance with the Sunnah.,124 The speculative activities of

Kalarn neither innova te nor advocate deviation from the

Prophetie traditions but rather affirm, procure the victory ".

of the Traditional creeds, and refute the heresies. 125

According 'to ~l-AhwanI, the Qur'anic basis of Kalam does not

support the application of the third tradition to them either,126

and the legacy of ijtih~d discussed in the preceding chapter,

even sus t
a~ns 1. t '
s re1gn as a rewar d a bl e ac t"1V~ t y~ 12 7 ln

.
favour of Mahmud's criticism, an AzharI scholar, Yahya

Hashirn, sirnilarly denounces Kalam's method for being circular.

Clarifying his remark, he says that as the knowledge of God

1

~s acquired in Kalam, primarily through reasoning whose

premisses must be made of self-evident ideas or things in-

tuitively believed to have been created by God, this method

implies that knowledge of God is acquired th~ough the knowl~dge

o'f God as a Creato'r. 128 This may sound weIl when Kalam

functions only ~ithin Muslim circles; nevertheless, the diversity

between religious and philosophical concepts of God's creation

impairs its validity.129 ~
Suggesting what he sees as an ideal method for Kalam,

Mahmd cites the Qur'anic verse which divides the whole

verses of the Our' an into clear and arnbiguous, and he comments

(
that only the former are ,the ones to be understood while the
 69

.J' ambiguous verses are merely to be affirmed, not studied .

( He opines that the know1edge of the arnbiguous verses must

be entrusted to God, un1ess one understands them through

divine inspiration which must conform both to reason anQ

reve 1 a t ~on. 130 Though he ascribes this viewto the

orthodox ancestors,l3l his inclusion of the existence of

God and His attributes in what he identifies as the arnbiguous

imp1ies a compulsion of blind faith. The consequence is

inconsistent not on1y with firrn belief in reve1ation

requi't:-ed of a Mus1im, but a1so with the Qur' anic verse

h rea d s, T h '~s no cornpu 1" 2
wh lC ere Slon ~n re 1"1910n. 13

Ibn Taymiyyah says that neither God nor His Messenger requi~

faith of man without understanding r , and he cites sorne Qur'anic

'verses by which the Prophet was cornrnanded to exp1ain and

133
the be1ieveis to ponder the Revelation of God. Furthermore,

he explains that the negated interpretation [al-ta'wI1

al-manfIJ on which Mahmd postu1ates his view is not Iit~ral

. '

but what is identical with the one negated in the verse tha~

reads, Do they look for aught else but its interpretation?

The day its interpretation comes, those who before forgot it

shall say, 'Indeed, our Lord's Messengers carne with the truth.134

He says that this negated interpretation is that of the

'realities of things' discussed in the ambiguous verses, and

that the existence of God and His attributes cannot be aIl

135
included in thern. Sorne ether evidence cited by Mahrnud
.
(, te justify his negative view, sueh as Malik's staternent about

God' s being on the t'hrone and others are declared by

i

/
 70

Ibn Taymiyyah -as being applicable to God's Essence and how

( He is on the Throne. He supports this conception by citing

sufyan ibn Cuyaynah's report, The tradition is to interpret

the commandment and the prohibition~ and cA'ishah's report,

The Prophet (P.B.U.H.) used to say when bowing and prostrating

in the prayers: May You be glorified, 0 our Lord~ forgiv~

me. These traditions and many others are adduced to support

the legitimacy of interpreting the Qur'an. 136 Concerning

MaI;md 's citations for repudiating the speculative a'ctivity

of Kalarn, their validity is questionable. The instances of

an illegitimate speculation in Islam are stated in the

Qur'an, and Ibn Tayrniyyah cites sorne of them. 137 A sirnilar

view is upheld by Hashim Farghal who notes the positive
D

response of the Prophet to the questions which Ma~ud

. - 138
suggests to be excluded from Kalam, whe~ever the y were

raised decisively for securing one's faith or disrnissing one's

doubt.:~39

It has been noted earlier that Mahmud appears in

his arguments ta be an advocate of Sufism. Likewise, his .

thought appears to lack originality as weIl as his advocated

method in acquiring the knowledge of God. This will have

to be proven .from his works and will constitute the main

topie of the next chapter.

,
\
i
(.,
$
~ 1

1
~
 c'

"
.~ . "

,':

NOTES

Chapter II,

l Mustafa C Abd al-Raziq, TaIDhld l i TrIkh al-Falsafah

al-Islamiyyah (Cairo: Lajnat al-Ta'IIf, 1959), p. 49; see
C - - - -
a1so Abd a1-Ha1irn Mahrnud, Al-Tafkir al-Falsafi fi-" Il-Islam
-

(Beirut: Dar ~l-Kitab; 1974), p. 309; YaCqb ibn Ishaq al-

.
KindI, Al-KindI's Metaphysics, transe by Alf~ed L. Ivry
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1974), p. 8;
Ahmad Fu'ad a1-Ah~I, Al-KindI Faylasf al-cArab (Cairo:
: C
Matba at Misr, n.d.), p. 274.

2 Ma~d, Al-TafkIr, p. 309.

3 Fauzi M. Najjar, ed., AI-FarabI's Fusl Muntazacah

(Se1ected Aplllorisms) ,(Beirut: Dar el-Mashreq Publishers, 1971),
pp. 52-53.

.
4 c Abd al-HalIm Mahmud, cMawqif al-slam min al-Falsafah,.
.
Majallat al-Azhar iO - (January - March, 1978), -p.- 1; see also
-
Mahmud, - wa ',1.-. c,Aql~-p-~
Al-Islam 49~

.
5 Mahmud, Al'-TafkIr, pp. 236-243

6 .
see also his articl~
.
Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 31, 51-52;
Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafh, p. 8.
(

71

 ,/
72

, .
)

,( 7 G., Gqsdorf, Trait de M,taphysique

(Paris: Colin,
1956), pp. 373-375; see also c~d al-Rahman BadawI, Madkhal
JadId ila 'l-Falsafah (Kuwait; Waka1at ~l-MatbuCat, 1975),
p. 213.

8 See Mahrnd, AI-TafkI~, pp. 223- 274; cf. Mahmd,

Al-Islam, pp. 49-63.

,; 1 ~ 9
See Mahrnd' s prefatory notes on .Al-TafkIr al-FalsafI,'
, p. 14.'

10 This statement belongs ta Mahmd, but c Abd al-Raziq

.
says only tht Kalam, Sufism, and Usul al-Fiqh have bederne
-
tamed by the phi~osophical tendency. See his TarnhId, p. 74-76;
.
cf~, Mahmd, A1-TafkIr, p. 12 .
.
Il Ibid., p., 8i Mahmud, Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah,
.
pp 29 29 7 f,
12 Mahmud, Al-Islam, pp. 62, '75; Ma~ud, Mawqlf al-Islam
min al-FaLsafah, part l, p. la; part II, pp. 297, 299;
Mahrnud, Manhaj al-Islah al-IslamI fI 'l-Mujtama C , p. 86i'
i
cf. Mahmud, AI-TafkIr, pp. 8-l4.~
t
, ... 13 Ibid., p. Il.

.
14 Mahmd, Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 298;
see aiso Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 53-54.

15 Ibid., pp. 5-}Oi Ma~ud,

- -
cMawqif <al-Islam ...
Dlin al-
Falaafah, ~ pp. 308-309,. :

::

...

l...
~-~>,- __
-.....-y-.~ _.-,~ _ _ _ _ _J ....... ________ ......

( 16 This remark can be traeed by comparing his works with
one another, especially, AI-Is1rum wa 'l-cAql (Cairo: Dar
al-Kutub al-~adIthah, 1966), and AI-Madrasah al-Shadhiliyyah
al-HadIthah wa Imamuha (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub, n.d.) .

17 In most cases, the points are identified only through

Mahmud's casual mention of the school which upholds them,
while hundreds of authors may belong to that school. Many
- c
instances of this are in his works such as Al-Islam wa '1- AgI
and Mugaddimah fI Man!-iq al-Ta~awwuf, edited together with
. al-Ghazz~lI' s AI-Munqidh min al-9alal (Cairo: Maktabat al- ~
Anglo al-Mi~riyyah, 1952).

.
18 Compare Mahmd criticism of Kalam in his Al-Islam
with the same topie in al-suyutI's Sawn al-Mantiq wa 'l-Kalam
i

C an Fann al-Mantig wa 'l-Kalam, ed. by CAlI samI al-Nashshar

(Cairo: AI-Khanaj 1, 1947).

19 Ma~d, Al-Islam, pp. 22, 53-54.

.
20 Mahmd, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p. 8.
\( . ..

21 Ibid.

22 Ma~d, Al-Islak, pp. 79-80; Ma~d, Mawqif_a1-Islam

min .al-Falsafah,. pp. 303-304; see also Mahmud, Al-TafkIr,
.
pp: 226-227; cf. Ibid., p. 230.

23 Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 9-10, 44.

24 Mahmd~ cMawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, pp. 293-294.

.
.

'.

~
.
, - -- - - - --
, - ....
J
 .,
74

25 Ibid., p. 297.
(
26
Ibid., pp. 298-299.
-'

,27 Ibid., p. 299.

28 Mahmud, Al-Islam,
- pp. 75, 158. "0}

29
0.0. Runes et al., Dictionaryof Philosophy (Totowa,
-.
New Jersey: Little field, Adams & Co., 1979), pp. 45-46.

-30
.
Mahmud, Al-Madrasah al-Shadhi1iyyah, pp. 309-310

31 A.J. Ayer, The Problem of Knowledge (London:

\,
Macmillan, 1956), p. 35.

32
Runes ~,a1., Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 45.

. .
33 'Mahmd, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p. 22.
'

34 Ren Descartes, P'hi1osophical Essays, transe by L.J.

Lafleur (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merri11 Educationa1 Pub1ishing,

,.
1977), p. 154; see also Charles Landesman, ed., The Foundations
of Knawledge (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:; Prentice-Hall,
,

Inc., 1970), p. 29; cf., Webster's Wor1~ Dictionary (Interna-

tional Edition).

35
Descartes, Philosophical Essays, p. 156.
1

" 36 That is, both scholars advacat& a distinction between

the method af acquiring knowledge and that of faith, but
they disagree. about what c1ass metaphysics belongs ta.

,
.....
~ J
 75

37 Descartes, Philosophical ES~YS, pp. 75-126, l52-156;

(
.
see also Ahmad Fu'ad al-AhwanI j MacanI 'l-Falsafah (Cairo~
al-~alabI, 1947), p. 56.

38 It is affirmed that the philosophical central questions

on metaphysics have no source other than religion. See F.M.
Cornford, From Religion to Philosophy (Atlantic Highlands,
New Jersey:- Humanities press';' 1,980), p. V of its preface.

39 Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 7-22, 23-48

~

40 cAlI Sami al-Nashshar, Nash'at al-Fikr al-FalsafI fI

Il-Islam, vol. 1. (Cairo: Dar al-Macarif, 1971), pp. 8, 44,46 .
.! "
41 Mahmd, Al-Islam, p. 27.

42 Mahmud, cMawqif al-Islam mi~ a~-Falsafah, part l,
l
p. 10; see also part II of the same article, p. 297.

43 Mahmud,
- Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p. 12; see also his

Al-Islam, pp. 59-60; Ma~d, cMawqif al-Islam min ~l-Falsafah, 0

p. 295.

44 Ma~d, Manhaj al-Islah al-IslamI, pp. 79-90; see

also cAbd al-HalIm Mahmd, Maw~if al-Islam min al-Fann wa
. .'
'l-cll~ wa 'I-Falsafah, Majallat al-Azhar 49 (July; 1977),
pris-806.

45 The verses mentioned here are the ones cited by

Mahmud for establishlng the existence of God, which connote
..
discovering God through experience. See Mahrnud, AI-Tafkir,
Cl c - - c
.
- .
pp. 64-68; cf. Abbas Mahmud al- Aqqad, AI-Falsafah al-
gur'aniyyah (Cairo: Dar Nah~at Misr, 1947), pp. 94-97 .
 76

( .
46 Muhammad al-BahI, AI-Janib al-IlahI min al-TafkIr
al-IslamI, vol. 2. (Cairo: al-HalabI, 1951), p. 213; see
also cAlI SamI al-Nashshar, Manhij al-Bahth c ind MufakkirI
c - .
Il-Islam (Cairo: Dar a1-Fikr al- Arabi, 1947), pp. 241-242;
al-Nashshar, Nash'at a1-Fikr, vol. l, p. 10.

47 Mahmud,
-
.
Mantig al-Tasawwuf, p. 12; Mahmud, Al-Islam,
~ .
.
pp. 41, 60i see also Mahmud, cMawqif al-Islam min al-Fa1safah,
p. 295.

48,JOhn Herman Randall, Jr. and Justus Buchler, Philosophy:

An Introduction (New York: Barnes & Noble, n.d.), p. 4.

49 Muhammad c Abd al-HadI Abu RIdah, ed.,"Rasa'il

al-KindI a1-Fa1safiyyah (Cairo: MatbaCat al~ICtimad, 1950),
.
pp. 107-111.

50
,\, Ibid., pp. 108, 110i see a1so Ma~d Zay~n, Manahij
al-Bahth al-Falsaft (k1exandria: al-Hay'ah al-Mi~riyyah,

1977), p. 12.

(
SI Randall and Buchler, Philosophy, p. 75.

. ' .
52 Mahmud, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p. 13; Mahmd, Al-~lam,
.
pp. 60-61 i see also Ma~ud, cMawq1f al-Islam min al-Falsafah,,
.
p. 296.

53 Andrew H., Bachhuber, S.J., Introduction to Logic

.
~.

(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957) i pp. 48-50;

s~e also Joseph D. Hassett, S.J. et al., The Philosophy of
Human Knowing (We~tminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1961),
pp. 124-127; Raymond J. McCa11, Basic Logic (New york: Barnes
& Noble, 1952) -pp. 132-148.

_ _...\-l. '_'~ __ '

.----......--J
 77

54
,r Ibid., pp. 133-135.
(

55 Ma~d, Man~iq al-Ta:awwuf, p. 13; Ma~d, Al-Islam,

p. 61; see also Mahmud, cMawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah,

p. 296.

56 ...
Runes et al. , Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 56.
-
57
Examine the syllogism on page 54 of this'thesis by
which he illustrates his view.

. ..
58 Mahmd, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p. 13; Mahmd,
. Al-Islam,
p. 16; Ma~ud, cMawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 296.

59 MCall, Basic Logic, p. 132.

.
60 Mahmd, cMawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 297

61 1
Mahmud, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p. 25.

"

62 Hassett et al., The Philosophy of Human Knowing, pp.

99-101.

63 Abu RIdah, ed., Rasa'!l al-KindI, p. 108; see also

al-BahI, AI-Janib al-IlahI, vol. 2, p. 79.

64 Hassett et al., The Philosophi ~Human

"
Knowinq,
pp 100, 10 5 .

65 Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (London,

New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press-, 1968), p. 81

...
 78 ,-

66 Hassett et al., The Philosophy of Human Knowing,

(
pp. 101-105.

67
See E.W. Lane, An Arabic-Eng1ish Lexicon, part 5
(Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1968), p. 1925.

68 Mahmd, cMawqif al-Islam min al-Fa1safah,

pp 2 9 7, 3 0 2

69
Ibid., p. 298.

70 Ibid., p. 299.

71 Ibid. ..

72 Hassett et al., The Philosophy of Human Knowing,

pp. 98-101.

73 Mahmud Zaydan, Manahij al-Bahth al-FalsafI, pp. 131-

134.

74 Mahmud, Manhaj al-Islah al-Islam!, p. 6.

75 MahmUd,"~-Islam, pp". 76-80; Mahmud, cMawqif al-Islam

~F ..

min al-Falsafah, pp. 298-299.

76 Jacob Needleman, ed., The Sword of Gnosis, (Baltimore,

(
Maryland: Pengui~, 1974), pp. 40-56. 'h.,., "
;/ ...
77
See pa'iles 14.&16 of this .thesis .j '
 79

( 78 William S. Sahakian, History of Philosophy

(New York: Barnes & Noble, 1968), pp. 173-174.

79
D.F. Pears, ed.~ The Nature of
(London: Macmillan, 1965), ppp 133-135.

80 Ma~-u-d,
~.. Man.ti q a 1 - Ta~awwu f , pp. 18 -23, 31 .

81
Sahakian, History of Philosophy, pp. 82-85.
('1

82
Randall and Buchler, Philosophy, pp. 37-42.

83 Mahmd,' Al-Islam, p. 10; Mahmd, AI-TafkIr, p. 14;

.
see also Mahmd, Al-Harnd II Allah, pp. 178-179; Mahrnd,

cMawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah,. p. 308.

84
Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 81-103.

",
85 Mahmd, Al-TafkIr, pp. 463-476.

86 c -
Abd al-Raziq, TarnhId, p. 203; Louis Gardet, c Ilm
al-Kalam,. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 3, New Edition
(Leiden: E.J. Brill & London: Luzac & Co., 1971);
see also Yahya Has~im, clnhiyar al-Bina' al-CAglI li-cIlm

al-Kalam, Majallat al-Azhar 49 (1977), pp. 1324-1325. ____ ,
--------------------~---------
87 cAbd al-Raziq, TamhId, p. 261: Louis Gardet and
G. AnawatI, Introduction ~ la Thologie Musulmane, trans. by
..
SubhI al-Salih
' .and FarId Jabr. Vol. 3 (Beirut: >Dar al-cIlm,
~l
1~69), p. 25.
 80

88 cAbd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad al-lji, Al-Mawaqif fi c'llm

'( al-Kalarn (Beirut: cXlam al-Kutub, n.d.), p. 7; c Abd al~Raziq,
TamhId, pp. 258-264; Hashim, clnhiyar al-Bina', pp. l3Q4-l325.

89'Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazzqli, Al-Munqidh min al-Dalal,

C' - -
ed. by . .
Abd al-Halim Mahmud. (Cairo: al-Anglo, 1952), pp.
58-59; cAbd al-Rahmah BadawI, Madha~ib al-Islamiyyin, Vol. 1 .
.
-
(Beirut: Dar al- c llm, 1979), pp. 8,12; see also Fazlur Rahman,
lslamic Methodology in History (Karachi: Central Iqstitute of
- c Azqul,
'lslamic Research, 1965), p. 114; Karim - a1- c AgI fi-
Il-Islam (Beirut: Matabl c Sadir RayhanI, 1946), pp. 16-17.
j . .
90 Ibid., pp. 13-14; BadawI, Madhahib al-IslamiyyIn, p. "8;'
see also W.M. Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought,
(~dinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1973), p. 183.

\
91 c c
Ibn Taymiyyah, DarI Ta arud al- AgI wa 'l-Naql, ed.

.
by Muhammad Rashad SalIm. Vol. l (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub, 1971)
p. 41.

92 .
Ibid.; see also Richard M. FraNk, cKalam and Philosophy,
(

A Perspective from One Problem, in the Islamic Philosophical

Theology, ed. ,by Parvis Morewedge. (Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1977) ,}p. 72.

93 W.M. Watt, Islamic Revelation in the Modern World

(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1969), p. 74.

94 l. Goldziher, Introduction to lslamic Theoldgy and'

~, transe by Andras and Ruth Hamori. (Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton 'University Press, 1981), p. 163.

r 95 cAlI ibn cAlI ibn Muhammad al-AmidI, Al-Ihkam fI usl

al-Ahkam, Vol. l, p. 227

~ ""~...--~ _ _ ~_ u __ .... _ _ _ ..
, '

'-
 81

96 Al-AhwanI, MacanI Il-Falsafah, pp. 132-133.

97 M.A. Cook, The Origins of Ka1am, Bulletin of

the Schpo1 of Oriental a~d African Studies 43 (Part l, 1980),

p. 32~
c -
cf. L. Gardet, Ilm al-Kalam, The Encyclopaedia of
Islam, Vol. 3, New Edition; see also Ahmad AmIn, Duha Il-Islam,

vol. 3 (Beirt: Dar al-Kitab, lOth. ed., n.d.), p. 9.

..
. c -
.
98 AI-TahawI, Mukhtasar Sharh,al- Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah,
,. .
. .
ed. by Muhammad Nasir al-DIn al-AlbanI. (Baghdad: Dar
al-NadhIr, 1969), pp. 17-18.

99 CAzql, Al- CAql fI Il-Islam, p. 21; i:ll-Nashshar,

Nashlat al-Fikr al-FalsafI, Vol. l, p. 30; see also J.A.
Williams, Islam (New York: George Brazil1er, 1962),_ p. 180

. 100 Al-TahawI, Mukhtasar Sharh al-CAqldah, p. 9

101 D. B. Macdonald, Development'of Muslim Theology,

, Jurisprud~nce and Constitutiona1 Theory (New Delhi, India:
Amarko Book Agency, 1973), p. 120; al-AhwanI, MacanI II-Falsafah,
pp. 131-132; ~amIl Sallba, A1-Dirasat al-Falsafiyyah, vol. 1
(Damascus: Damascus University Press, 1964), pp. Sb-72;

. .
Salah al-DIn al-Munajjid, Al-Islam wa Il-cAql (Beirut:
Dar al-Kitab al-JadId, 1974), p. 7; see also Fazlur Rahman,
'!slamic Methodology, p. 114.

102 Al-Ghazza1I, Al-Munqidh, p. 56; Ma~ud, Al-TafkIr,

p. 238.

103 Ibid., pp. 467-468.

o

C'
1
1
~
104 CAzql, Al- CAql fI Il-Islam, pp. 80-83.
,
!
;
!
f
,
~-
d ZI.
 82

105 c Abd al-HadI Abu RIdah, cAl-CAql c ind al-GhazzalI,~

( Al-cArabI 249 (1979), pp. 34-35.

106 CAzqul, AI-CAql fI Il-Islam, rp . 22-25; Al-Imam

-- - - \ - C-~
al-Ghazzali, Mantig Tahafut al-Falasifah al-Musamma Mi yar
al- C Ilm, ed. by Su1ayman
- -
Dunya. (Caire: al-Ma c-
arif, 1961),
pp. ~4-l5, 19-22; see also Al-Imam al-GhazzaII, Tahafut a1-
(Cairo: al-Macarif, 1958~,
.
-
Falasifah, ed. by sulayman Dunya.
p'. 83.

.
107 Ibid., p. 35; see also JamI1 Sa1Iba, TarIkh al-Fa1safah
al-CArabiyyah (Beirut: Dar a1-Kitab, 1970), pp. 346-347.

108 ~a1~a, A1-Dirasat a1-Fas1afiyyah, vol. 1, p. 211.

109 Ma~ud, AI-Islam, p. 32.

110 Ibid., p. 59; Mahmd, Mantig al-Tasawwuf, p. Il.

\ . i

III '
Amin, Duha Il-Islam, vol. 3, p. lOi W.M. Watt,
i

Islamic Philosophy and Theo1ogy (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press, 1979), p. 69; see a1so Mahrnd, AI-TafkIr, p. 280.

112 Al-GhazzalI, Al-Munqidh, pp. 66-67.

113 AI-Nashshar, Manahij al-Bahth, pp. 67-70; Frank,

i

Ka1am and Philesophy, p. 74.

114 AI-Nashshar, Manahij a1-Bahth, p 242.

115 c Abd al-Jabbar

- Ahmad, Firag wa Tabaqat
- al-Mu c tazilah,
ed. by cAlI Sam! al-Nashshr and c Isam al:DIn Muhamird cAlI.
(Cairo: Dar al-Ma~bC~t a1-JmiCiYY~h, 1972)~, PP: 167-168.

, ___ ~ r l ' _ _ .. _ ..... - -

~-
 83

116 Al-AhwanI, MacanI !l-Falsafah, pp. 132-133i see

( a1so his AI-Falsafah al-Islamiyyah (Cairo: Dar al-Qa1am, 1962),
pp. 18-19.

117 Watt, Is1amic Philosophy, p . 58.

(
118 Mahmd, AI-Islarn~ p. 48.
. , .
119 H.A.R. Gibb, Moharnmedanism (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1962), p. 114; see also c Azgu1,
- A1- c AgI fi- 'I-Is1am,
-'
p. 19.

120 Al-AhwanI, MacanI 'l-Falsafah, pp. 132-133.

121 Mahmd, Al-Islam, p. 9

.
122 c Abduh , Risalat a1-TawhId, p. lai 'see also his
Al-Islam wa 'l-Nasran~yyah, pp. 48, 51i cf. Mahmd, Al-Islam,
p. 13.
.. .

123 Ibid., p. 85.

'-...
124 Lane, :.:An=-..;;.A:.:r;;..;a;;;,;b;;;.;i;;;;.c~-,;;;;E:.:n;.o,cg..::1;.;:i:;.;;s;.;.h;;..-...:L::;.;e;;;.;x;,;;.~;;;;.c;:;.o=n, part I, p. 167.

125 AI-Ghazza1i, A1-Munqidh, pp. 58-59; c Abd l-Raziq,

Tarnhid, pp. 253-264; c Azqul,
- - Al- c AgI fi- 'l-Islam,
- p. 17;
see also c Abd al-Karim
- Ghal1ab,- Sira-c a1-Madhhao wa '1- c Aqidah
-
fI 'l-Qur'an (Beirut: Dar al-K:t~b, 1973), pp. 213-221." """" ...... "....
I----------~~~~~
., : , , , .: , " , , , , l " " ,,' '" ,1

126 Al-AhwanI, MacanI '1-Fa1safah, p. 133.

1
 84

..
127 Jamal a1-DIn al-QasirnI a1-DimashqI, TarIkh al-
{ Jahmiyyah wa '1-Mu tazi1ah (Belrut: Mu'assasat al-Risalah,
C

19 7 9), pp . 7 7 - 8 3 .

128 Hash1m,
-. . -
Inh1yar -
al-Bina', Al-Azhar 49~ p. 1316;
C
see also CAzql, A1- Aql fI 'l-Islam, p. 18.

129 S.E. Frost, Jr., Basic Teachings of the Great

Philosophers (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1962),

pp. 5 - 52.

.
130 Mahmd, Al-Islam, p. -10

131 Ib1'd., pp. 15 - 19 .

132 Qur'an 2:256; see also Mahmd Shaltt, Al-Islam:

cAqIdah wa sharIcah (Beirut: Dar al-shurq, n.d.), pp. 29-21.

- . 133 Ibn Taymiyyah, Dar' Tacarud al-CAql, pp. 20-2, 204

.134 Ibid., p. 206; Qur'an 7:52-53.

135 Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-IklIl, pp. 30-33.

.
136 Ibn Taymiyy:~n..#_. Dar' TaCarud al-CAql,... pp. 206-207.
, " 1

.' JI'

, J :. ' , ,~. ,~ , , f ' , r

, " , .' . , 1 J" , , l'

137
Ibi~., pp. 46-48.

138 Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 32, 86-101.

139 Yahya Hashim Farghal, Hukm al-Tasa'u1 fI MaSa'il

.'

~l-CAqIdah, Majal1at al-Azhar 48 (April, 1976), pp. 441-444.

li

I_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ j___ _ . "f'_M-_ ..... la

~
~
(
"

CHAPTER III

FOCUS OF MAHMUD~S THOUGHT

. '
/

It has been earlier noteq that Mahmud~advocates

Sufism i~ his writings and that his method of achieving

the knowldge of God is mostly derived frpm sorne preceding

Muslim scholars.' The common"target of critic~sm advanced

by aIl Muslirn theologians and jurists, including the

MuCtazilites, was the rationalistic character of Aristote-

lian logic extended to the Greek notion of rnetaPhysics,~ ,

but Mahmud gdes beyond this end. He does not even exclude

from his denunciation the rnethod of al-AshcarI (d.333/935)

for knowing God, by which the latter revived or estab-
2
lished the doctrine of acquisition. Likewise, Mahmud

considers Ibn Taymiyyah to be outside the Traditional

School [al-salafiyyahJ because of his use of reason in the

3
study of the Divine attributes. By recourse to Sufi ec- ~

stasy, Mahmud attempts to replace Ibn Taymiyyah's ~thod

of studying this theological aspect. He adds that he

wrote aIl his works on rnethodology, theology, Sufism, and

- - 4
jurisprudence in order to prornote the Sufi rnethod.

Mahrnud acknowledges in h~s autobiography that the

,1

85

---_--.. ....... ---- - -,..- - _... -- ...---- ---

 86

topic of his doctoral dissertation (AI-Mohas~bI, un ..

( M~stique Musulman Religieux et Moraliste) led him to a'
1thorough study of Sufism. 5 Earlier, he seems to have been
i~fluenced by the SfI'trend predominant long before and

during his childhood. The prevalence of Sufisrn at that

time is vident in the numerous articles published in
the various issues of Egyptian journals, such as Majallat
al-Manar. 6 Sufism was aiso inciuded in the curricula of
CI

al-Azhar, and its persistence whenMahmud was a student at

this University is probable. 7 Actually, h~s reaction to
what he t~Ought to .~e the Western method of scholarship
'~

when he w'as a graduate student in Paris can be partly in-

terpreted as a result of the influence of Traditionalismj,
j
on hirn. However, his conservativeness seems to have bee-'
,
blended with Sufism before his graduation from al-Azh\r.
This ca1?e justified from the narration of his intel/ec-
tuaI experience in Europe, whereby he explains how con-
fused he4las by the Western method of scholarship. Though
J'J ....'

his co~fusion could be dlspe~led in the light of the tradi-

.
tional thought of Ahmad ;ibn Hanbal; Ibn Taymiyyah, and
others, it was rather dispelled in th light of Sufisrn.
Mahmud says:

l found peace of mind in th!=! thought of

al-Harith ibn Asad al-MuhasibI (d.243/857),
l m~an tranquil{ty of ce~titude and calm-
ne~s. l completed the doctoral prograrn and
( l was certain of what the method of Muslim
life should be, i.e., the rnethod of

J
 ..
87

, 8 ,.
/ obediencQ.
'~
r
Due to his conviction that a~uhasibI's thought was ade-
J'-"' -"-".

quately and accurately presented'by al-GhazzalI (d.50~/111)

and cAbd al-Wahid Yahya

. . (i.e., Ren Gunon d.1371/l951),
o

Ma~~d adopts many views of these personalities. 9 He

L

considers ,his own crticism of philosophy and kalam or

... Aristotelian logic as an emulation of al-GhazzalI' s act,

\~
which he erroneously declares to be a disrnissal of reason
. 10 .
from the study of Islamic metaphysics. It was clarified

earlier that popular opinion considers the attack on Aris~

totelian logic by Muslim critics, including al-GhazzalI,

as only an attempt to explain the appropriate way of

.
uS1ng "
reason. Il By declating a part of Muqaddmah fI

.. Mantig- al-Tasawwuf (Cairo, 1952) 'as a digest of sorne arti-

0

cles written by Ren Gunon, Ma~md acknowledges his debt

, 12
to the French scholar. This work is rernarkably felt in

aIl of Mahmud's writings on Islamic thou~ht.13 Having

",
identified the origin of his ideas, we will now study the

factors that led him to write on this subject.

1
, 1
It has been noted jpreviously th'at Mahmud did not

have an acadernic p\!lrpose in writing, and evidence can be

,
cited' te this effect from his works. ' The actual cause of

Ma~mUd's ~riting was his negative reaction to 'rnodernity'

in Egypt. Though thi:s ()issue was ol.der

,
than Mahmud himself, .
i t resurged in t~e 1940's when he and his conternporaries

,
" '
c returned from Europe.

Sufisrn, in its modern form, has been attacked and

",
i
_JJ
 88

C declared as a deviation from o~thodox Islam. 14 Yet

.Mahmd
. suggests that the SfI terms, ernotion [al-wijdan]
./
or ecstasy [al-kashf], qught to be made an authority in

theological studies. lS This matter was discussed by

16
.
Sayyid Qutb and cALI al-TantawI in 1944.
'.
Like Mahrnud,
.
both Qutb and al-TantawI maintain that faith is acqui~ed

through intuition alone, and that reason is oQ~Y an aid

17
for the interpretation of what is intuitively know.
18
This view was refuted by Khallaf. If one compares

1
"
Mahmd's argument with the discu5~ion5 of Muhammad cAbduh

and the aforemntioned scholars, one will not doubt

that his writing was a reaction to such pOI~~i~ This can

be substantiated by . .
, the following statements':
- I~.

1
AlI that l wrote on Suf'ism and notable
1
SfIs was in.order to advocate the
method of obedience. Primarily, th.is
method involves a resistance to any
'"
type of intellectual crisis that may
arise on creedal issues, social systems
19
and law.

.
He follows this statement with a clear denunciation of

of the established schools of law and the aQuses of the

Western or modern method applied in teaching theology and

morals in Egypt.

For the sake of clarity and close scrutiny, Mahmud's

arguments need te be recapitulated. 'Though his primary

( concern i5 how to acquire knowledge of God or metaphysics

in general, his diScUS\ion has ~ dichetomous feature. As

Cl

- - _. ~~ - '--
---------,
 ,-
89

he acknowledges in many of his works that AI-slm wq l-c AS1

( is the treatise by which he advocates his concepts on
j
, - ,

methodology, this book portrays both the negatrve and

positiv~ aspects of his thought. The ~ormer is his reaption 0

to mo~~orni'CY in Egypt Jnd his criticism of scholastic Jnd .

1
philosophic methods. ' He says 1 ~f we do not resist \

modern civilization, we will not be worthy of an Islami

"-
J identity, nor will we be ~mulatinqv the founder of the

Islamic religion. :0 ,.Besid~ he appea~s to other Muslim : ,

thinkers ~o work collectively for the re~ectiQn of aIl

foreign el~ments.21 Though his discussion on this topio,

,
especially on both the~ncompatiility of modernity with

Islam and the failure of philosophy, proved to be weak,

this remark does net assert an ahsolute perfection for the

philosophie method. There have been criticisms levelled

against both inductive and deductive logic which have not

yet met a co~ent refutat!on.

,1
1

The Philosophie Method ls Use fuI but Not

Cl Il
Perf~ct
1 .

The circularity of'inductive logic affirmed by

22
Ayer as being unavoidable has been held by Ibn Taymiyyah

ag~inst the syllogistic syste~. The latter explains that

.~

,
the condition by which the logicians necessitate the uni-

versal'ity of the major 'premiss entails a prior knowledge

of its being universar. T~s prior knowledge must be ac-

quired through either intuition or deduction. With the

( ,..
<i- ',,-

former, the particulars of ~he universal premiss to be es-

'~ ___~"' t. . . J
 /
., ,
i .

90
,
i
tablis'hed should De ~ore \ easily known through the sarne
, '

intuitive method . .If,this prior knowledge of its being

universal is aequired through deduction, t~s situation
still involves fnitially.an intuitive basis and thus
eireularity is ineseapable. 23
Th,is is the point remarked by Russell when he
says:
"
The' Posterior Analytics i~ a work large1y /'

coneerned wi th an question Yfhich mus,t.

trouble any deductive theofy , namely: How
are first premises obtained? Sinee de-

/ duetion must start from somewhere, we must

begin with something unproved, whieh must
be known otherwise than by demonstration. 24
,
(?

He finally summarizes the shorteomings of the de-

ducbive met~od in these points, namely:

..LI) Formal de feets within the system itself.

(2) Overesti.mation of syllogism, as eompared
to other forms of deduetive argument.
( 3) Overestimation of deduetion as a form of,
argument.

However, the foregoing indieates that logic, as a'philo-

sophie method, is open ta eritieism, but Mahmd fails
to aeknowledge this facto Still, this inadequaey of logic
\
cannot dismiss, as Mahmd erroneously presumes, the total
use of intellect, because the object of the above criticism
.c ,25
i s the system not t h e h uman f aeu l ty 0 f reason1ng.

-- . -.- --. _._-._~- ----------~.- ..... _.1

 ---:-
, !

91 ,

'" ~'
-
1 , "

God i'5~1e ''hrough Sufism Only ...

(
"
As for the positive

it ts the ideas published with Ren

aspec~ of Mahmd's t-hought,

Gu~non's biography

that he adopts. Mahmd repeats these ideas in many of

e ..

r
2
his other works. ' They represent his belief in the

. knowability of Gpd or metaphysics in general through an

extra c~~nnl besides sJnses and rationali~y. H says:

'c

Besides senses and intellect, Islam

,guides humanity to another source
,~

l,
,
,a (m~thod) of knowledge and gn9sis, i.e.,
td the heart, the soul or intuition.
In other wQrds, it guide 7 mankind to
i1Tuminative or inspired gnosis.
Sufism ~s the appropriate method that
leadsto the acquisition of real gnosis. 27fr
Q
,1
~
Furthermore he declares al~tasawwuf to be substantially a

o , science which p~r~ues the knowledge of metaphysics. 28

, On the 9ther hand, M~hmd's adhesion to this type
!" 0

of Sufism makes hLffi self-contradictory. In one of his

~orksc' l').e explains that God ha~ set the obj ect and rneans
of grasping metaphysics'in the Qur'an,29 and any pursuit i' '

of metaphysical stu~ies is therefore a blasphemy. Man's

.
response, Mahmd maintains, should be only submission to
1

t~e Divine teachings. Commenting on the connotation of

a Qur'anic verse which reads:

~

(
.
It is He who sent down upon thee'the
Book, wherein are verses clear tha~
1

fre 'th Ej-penCe of the BookJ, and others

cJ~'\ 1(
 amblguous ~erses, the interpretation of which, he maintains, ... ,\ ...

... should be entrusted to God. 31' This l~tter position is ip

.
no"way consistent with Mahmd 1 S adh~sion to Sufism as a _

science' whi..ch purs'uek, as' he puts i t, the knowledge of rneta-

physiq? However, this concept i5 hot different

,;o., -
from

v Plotinism that' Ma~rnud anctioned in one of his works. 32

, ,
!,Mahmd can then be ~ncluded in the circle of intellectual
- - c - 33..
, .
Sufis, as al- Aqqad identifies them, though his tena-'

1/
'

crous objection to the use of reason in meta~hysics seerning-

,
ly suggests ,to include him in that of emotional SufIs;

~probably ~t is better to identify hirn in general a~' a

gnoJti'c ~qfI.,
To verify the intellectual enterprise claimed for
\ .
Su:ism,. Mahmd divides the knowledge of God into two

categor:i.es. According to him, the"knowledge .of God ac-

quired through religious text~ [al-nuss al~dIniyyah or

~ al-sharI c ah ] is indirect and inadequate, and the one'

through SfI ecstasy is the only true and itnrnediate knowle'tge.

He explains that the latter is not obtainable through

'(, ' reading, because the prirnary requirernent of passing through

Sufism is 'spiritual influence' [al-ta' th Ir al-rhiJ. or

f'
 \.\ 1
93
,1
1

" 'blel?sing' [al-barakahJ, and th~t this require5 a iSPiri~u~

director' [a}-shayk,bJ for a no~~ce. A certificate .calle~ '.
l 'Q,
al-silsilah is initially issued ~y a~-shaykh ta his
disciple who is afterwards instr~cted ta begi~ the greatest
noly war against any mundane thing beside God. Mahmd ex-
1

plains that t~e novice will 501ely pursue spiritual medi~

1.

tations and rernembra~ce of Gad progressing by graduaI

passage the stages [a1-maqamat], experieni~g un-
usual l-ahwal] culminating in Piety.~4
. ~,

Mahmd elabortes the SfI stages and states in

nis al-Madrasah al-Shadhiliyyah al-HadIthah wa Imamuha,35
,
and treats thern briefly in his .oth~r works. I~_.his Man 7iq
1
al-Tasawwuf, he lists three stage~, narne1~: repentance
[al-tawbahJ, reserve [al-wraJ, and asceticism [al-zuhdJ
.which he considers the most difficult of aIl stages. As'
"
for the states [al-ahwal J, he mentions fi~e and explains

~hem in order, 'e.g. ' . ,
l. steadfastness
2. persistent fear of Gad "

3. love of God 1
.
, 4. vision of Gad 1
1 i
1 ..
5., l.osing one's Self,in1/ G0d
1

While expounding how the 'fst state 15 experienced, he

s\Ys that gnostic loses his self,in God with a power-

,1

that strips1 the former of his senses of hearing and seeing

"
1

until he utters secretly or openly'that,oThere 15 none

'C ,ll
.
in the garment save God. Furthermore, Mahmd explains the

\ .
 ./ 1
, .
\

, , . 1 9,4
1
. '

'1
metaphysical knowledg.~ .acquired through Sufisrn as the
(' ..
'real knowledge of the: ~sse,nce, Divine at~r~butes of God,
\

and the 'grasp of Divine wisdom in the creation of. the

-
!
- 'present world and the one to come. 36

1
1
The Modern View of Sufism
The modernists agree with Mahmd on the knwabili~y
of God, but they differ on the extent of thls laim and
-
the,authoritative method of acquiring ~hat knowledge. Ac-
t

cording to al-Najjar, tpe modern consensus is based upon

t _

al-Nasafi's (d.537/1143) expression which reads, Realities

of things are undis'pu,table and their acquisition is ob-
. . 37
tainable [muta~aqqiq], contrary tb (the claim of) sophism.,
But ~he modern interpretation of this-citation applies ta
i '
its Fonnotation r.to the metphysical knowledge that can be
o /

acq-qirep. ~hrough a method consisting of' sen~es; rationali,~y",

and the two pri~ary sources of ~slam, the Qur'ah and the
~adIth.38 Beside, S'ayyid Qutb maintains an opinio~imilar ta
/

that Qf Mahrniid that faith is obtainable malnly through

< ,~ \
'emotional logic' [al-man~iq al-wijdanI], and his view \
is approved' by CAlI al-TantawI;39 Although Qutb' s perspec-
tive corresponds te that of Mahmd in affirming the authoritYn
or primacy of intuition in acquiring faith, the former
never doubts the capacity of religious texts in the process
of how ta acquire faith. 40 The criticism made by cAbd al-
<

( Mun c ,i-ID- Khallaf, against endowi'rg emotion wi th this au thority,

'

has sorne logic to it. He says that if emotion were the

f...

,
, ,
1
l
'- , .,-:'
 '" 95

authoritative means of acqu}ring faith, then there would

If
( o
'be no distinction between a monotheistic-and a polytheistic

,conclusion since both would be reached through the same

/ channel. He also explains that the human rnind rarely

accepts a(doctrin~_ without having it examined intellectually

.0
and sati~factorily.41

. To examine Sufism in Egyptia~ rnodern>thought,

Muhammad c Abduh , a prominent c~ampion pf modernity in

Eg~pt, co~sider~ it as the core of Islam but he denounces

its developed forrn. 42 cAbduh's discrifination has b~en

elaborated b~ many scholars such as Mustafa c Abd ' al-Raziq, ,

.
Ahmad AmIn, Muhammad Ghallab, c Abbas Mahmud al-CAqqad and
43
others. They expIa in that asceticisrn~ apparently
1

taught by many Qur'anic verses, 'was thej trend which,developed

44
fnto sufism. During this evolvernent, many ideas, they

believe, have been incorporated into Sufism, sch as

Neoplatonism, gnoss and the idea of losing one's self

- -in, 'God importe? from Indian or Persian philosophy by al-

BistamI, Dhu 'l-Nun, and Ibn Karram.

45
Nevertheless, sorne

", 1
SfIs confine their spiritual activities to the sope of

Qur'anic injunctions only. The ~usion of foreign ideas 4

and Islarnic ones justifies cAbduh's distintion between

the early and the developed forms of Sufism, and provides

ground for later classification into different kinds.

Ghallab div~des
1,
it into theoretical and pra~tical trends
c - ,
and al- Aqqad into intellectual Sufism, ernotional Sufism
( /
and Sufism with an extreme or a moderate notion of asceti-
, .
)

7
, 1 \,
 -.
96 \

. 46 J "
cJ..srn.

This illustration is mde in order to contrast

the modernist view of'Sufism with that of Mahmud. In

this regard, the dire~t kno~ledge of,God or gnosis de-

clared as the central conctrn of Sufism by Ma~md reern~

to have neither a basis in' Isla~ic texts nor cons~stency

~with modernist conceptions. Though Mahmd and sorne SufIs

presume that their pursuit of metaphysics or'gnosis is

/ an emula tion of Muhammad' s practices befor,e' prophethood, a ,

thi.s presumption doe,s not conform to .prophetic teachings.

A tradition from the PDophet says: Ponder the bounties

(or the creatures) of God, not His Essence lest you perish.47

If the Prophet thought that God could be essentially

1 1
grasped, he would not have~said the above citation. The
1

t1adition just cited or its like was used against the

'r~tional pursuit of metaphysic~ bylMahmd,48 but he did

not consider' it as being applicable te the Suf! pursuit of

metaphysical knowledge. However,- the origin of gnosis

~s historically ascribed to Ibn Karr~rn and Dhu'l-Nun

(d.245j859). Likewise, the idea of losing one's self in

God [al-Fana'] originally belongs to al-Bistm! (d.261/865)

- - 49
and Dhu 'l-Nun, -and its absence in the teachings of the

Prophet and his companions s~stains the belief that it is

1
1 a mere innovation. Also, pantheism and the doctrine of lt
iJ
incarnation claimed by Mahmud as ways plausibly leading to 1

( God used to be reconciled with Islamic monotheism. If the

foregoing hopefully showssorne' in90nsist~n~ies of Sufism

------_ ....... _--_.-....------ ---~ ' ..

 ,
~- ---~-

\ 9T

according t~ religious and historical" perspectives of Is-

(
lamie thQught, it neither affirms nor disproves the justi-

fiability of the SufI -

claim of immediate knowledge of Gad.

Analytical Study of the SfI System

1
Sufism as the major cG'Jncern of Mahmud' s though t
1

has been presented above as J system consisting of stages

and states aIl of which, he bel~eves, lead to the direct

know~edge or gnosis of Gad. But spiritual meditations

and remembrance of Gad pursued to help one pass certain

stages and experience certain states until one sees God

or loses one's self in Gad, must be preceded by the belief

1 in God. Repentance and reserve can be applied when there

are tenets which fix moral limi-ts and declare certain acts

to be indecent, and in which one satisfactorily believes.

Steadfastness, persistent care, and love for the source of

these tenets are the necessary consequences of this faith.

1 \

However, Sufism draws a different bonclusion fram this.

1
It claims ta yield vision of GOd and that man can be ab-

sorbed in Gad. Before the examination~ of the authority

claimed for this idea, the significance of method needs

ta be reviewed in order to determine the class to which

1 . 1

1
J

Sufism belongs. !

In the Dictionary bf Phi1osophy, method is said

. o
~
to have three different meanings: 1
( 1. Any' procedure ~mployed ta attain a certain
end.' "

,i
'.
i
;.J
 \r

,
. ) 98
.
l' .
,

2. Any technique employed in the process

1 3.
of acquiring knowledge of a given subject
matter.
The science which formulates the rules of
\

50
any procedur.e.

The procedure of the SfI way of knowing, as Mahmd pre-

sents it, can be given the first rneaning only, because

!
the stages and states are rites or practices dict'ated by

faith. At the same tirne, the accuracy of this correlation

depends on the reality of ~he

t
knowledge clairned by the

SufIs through these stages and states, and whether it is

justifiable or not.

The reality of gnosis acquired through Sufism ac-

1

J cording to Mahmud can be surnmarized in th~ee points. First,

1
he explains that a seeker progresses from love to the vision

of God in every direction and place. But the love and tpe

vision of God are actual~y basic in Islarnic teachings.

Love is the reciprocity of a believer as the Qur'an says,

But those that believe love God more ardently. 51 The

vision of God is also prornised as a privilege of the

.
faithful in the life to come as the Qur'an saYSr That
\
Day (the Day of Resurrection) sorne faces will be ~ooking

at their Lord.52 As the anthropomorphic element is

bpsic in the human concept of sight, many " diverse opinions

53
are held on its possibility even in the life to come.

Like many other sufIs, Mahmud believes that God can be

seen by man but when he considers this as a spiritual state

- -- -- -~-
 99

for a see!Cer he introduces a distinct concept. He rnakes

( .
two different statements about'its occurrence in the mater~al
o ~

wor Id. He says that a seeker moves from the love to the

vision of God in every direction and place,54 and the

An inspired man is he in whose heart -the' Truth becomes

uncdvered. 55 One of these expressions with the phrase.'

'in ~very .dir~ction a,nd _place' impl~es vision with prYSi-

cal eyes, while the other 'in whose, heart the Truth be-
-
cornes "uncovered' connotes vision with the mind. Neither

the clainf of Gad' s visibil i ty in this warld nor any of i ts

implications deduced from Mahmd 1 s discussion is new in

the liist~ry of Isl~mic thought. A view rnaintaining the
."
occurrene of visioh. in this world has been related by
al-l\shcarI (d. 324/935) from sorne of the early theologians, 5,6

~nd by Rida from the visionists

. , ,
tashab-al-shuhd]
-. of the

intellectual SfIs' [sfiyyat al-haga' iq:J. Neverthele~s,

nei ther the )Qur 'an nar the prophetie tradi tian aff irms the
possibilty of vision of Gad in this world. Many notable

~fIs such as al-KalabadhI an~ al,-QushayrI condemn any

seeker that claims the occurrence of Gad' s v.isibili ty in

thls ~orld as his miracle [karamah]. 58 Whether seeing

God is with physical eyes or,with the mind, Mahmd,needs

Il 'to substantiate the vis/ion he identifies as a spiritual

11 state
_
in Sufism. 0'
The' aonnotation of 'seing od in ev~ry
direction and place', seems inconsistent Wiih Islamic
monotheism. Al though thi~ remark do~s not' disprove the
.
occurrence of the seeker's vision of God, the plausibility
o
 10'0

of Mahmd's claLm requ~res further supplementation.

( .
Second, Mahmd elaboraees how a seeker can lose
his sexf in God until he declares that, There is none
J 59
in the garment save God. - This notion of annihilation
[al-fanal] corresponds with al-Hallaj's concept of in~
carnation which 1s contrary not only to orthodox Islam
but also to Mahmd's other classif~cation of al-fanal as
'to lose onels abominable qualities for righte~us ones. 160
If the Qur' an, the Book claimed as the main source of
-,
.Sufism, forbids the ascription of 'being a God-incarnate'
t. . . a Prophet and a Word of God, They are unbelievers who
61,
say, ~God .is the Messiah, Mary's son, one may deny the
conformity of Ma~dls view to this Qur'anic verse.
Moving to a, more important issue, he declares al-fanal as
.
\ the final statei therefore he follows i,t with the clarifi-
1 cati'on of the knowledge obtainable through Suf ism as !..:'!.!,

being an imrnedi~te kn9wledge of

God's Essence, His attri-
butes, and other metaphysical realities. 62 To verify
whether ~his claim ,is true or not, one needs tg know the
- ----
factors that precip~1ted the Suf! pursuit of rnetaphysics.
In one of his works, Mahmud considers scepticism,
. "
-
63
[al-shakk] to be one of the princi)?al factors,. but 1:he
-
term 'scepticism' itself needs to be defined and specified
i
before t~e main goal'could be achieved. Th lexical r
\
meaning,of scepticism i~ a doubting state of rnind,64 1
but this word was' made a technical terrn by the epistemolo- 1
!
gists who also gave it th'ree different denotations; namely:

lJ
~ -- --~--------:------
 10'1

His denial of the posslbility of ~bsolute doubt in accord-

ance :ith carresianism, and hi~ ~xtreme distrust "Of_bath
senses and inbellect suggest a harmony between MahmQd's

scepticism aJd the last two of the definitions ci~ed above.

At the sarne time, his statement that one must be a be-

liever before; one can be a SufI indicates the use of in-

tellect o~ both intellect an~ senses in the process of ac-

/
quiring faith, and this a~tude justifies Ma~~d's diS~f/1
trust of neither senses nor intellect. Although 'he cite - -
__ t 0 66
~
al-Ghazzali's doubt as an example, the fact that al-

GhazzalI'was sometirnes scePtical~oes not affirm the

coherence of'scepticism with the SufT doctrines. In other

words, to cite this factor as one of those that 'lead

l '

-,
.
SufIs to the pursuit, of metaphysics implfes that either a

sufI
.,. initially disbelieves in the adequacy of the Quranic
1

teachings and pursues the study of metaphysics in order-

to perfct them or 'he accepts the ideas but feels in need

of more au~henti~ation for certitude. The latter proposi-

...
.~?I tion has sorne consistency with conunon sense and orthodox

ISlam, although it proves the absence of novelty in the

_ 0 ~
abject of knowldge claimed ta be obtainable through Su~ism.

( This concept 1s provable in .Ma~md'S remark that, The

-,
experience of a gnostic 15 like that of a person who f1rst

. \
. __ . _...-_. . ___
.. ',','
"

.~.A_.~
"

___"""_'___--'-_________
. .,-
,1
 10-2

imagines the denotations of sorne names and finally becomes

certain of thern.67 If Sufism, on account of the fore-
going, yields nothing other than confirmation of what has
been taught in-fhe Qurlan, one may'not hesitate to as sert
the cogency of Coels following expres~ion, The mystlc ~

brings his theological beliefs to the mystieal experience,

he does not derive them from it.68 Also Pratt says,
The visions of the mystics are determined in content by
~their
.
belief, and are due to the dream imagination working
upon the rnass of theological material which fills the mind.69
This notion 15 actually traceable in tHe say1ngs of sorne
notable ~fis such as al-KalabadhI, al-Junayd('and theps, e.g.

He who did not memorize the Qurlan, and dia

not write the Tradition [al-HadIth] cannot be
. '
emulated in this matter (Sufism), because our
.
science is subject to (the teachings of) the
Qurlan and (Prophetie) Tr~dition.70

Sufism, an an Islamie form of mysticism, 15 liable to this

,
defect. lhe var10us conclusions drawn py the gnostic
,
SfIs are not'differentfrom the religio-philosophical
"
tenets that constttute their individual mentalities. Sufism h
1
does not necessarily lead to knowledge. Mahrnd says, .l
,

metaPhYSiCa~nOWledge ~s
\
The acquisition of reached only 1

by the chosen class.7l If a system lik Sufism neither-

contains promising techniques nor yields any new knowledge,
~
./

it cannot be accepted as an' authoritative method of acquiring

the knowledge of Gad. Moreover, Sahl has said,'
Glory be ta Him of Whose gnosis men have attained naught
 103

"
but (the knowledge) that they are incapable of knpwing
Him;72 this exp~ession gives a hint that Sufism does-nof

lead to any new knowledge of God, and it remains only a

means of attaining righteousness.
1
As for Mahmd's i~terpretation of the gnostic's
experience as anoimmediate knowledge of God's Essence, the
plausibility df this notion requires substantiation.
Many of the modern scholars 'such as Walter Kaufmann, Normap
Malcolm, and others mak a distinction between knowledge
and faith. 73 In religious language, it is generally
maintained, as Kaufmann puts it, that belief is quite
compatible with'certainty and may ev~n imply it.7~ This'

, (,j
notion is found in Mahmud's discussion, and is p:obably
the basis of his aforementioned' interpretation of the
gnostic's experience as knowledge, but it is not an accept-
1

able criterion for claiming knowledge in modern thought.

Kaufmann explains tha~, What distinguishes knowledge is
not certainty but evidence;75 this is the common,notion

of knowledge in phil~sophy. The gnostic SufIs'are there- /

'1
l
fore req~ired to justify their claim of immedia'te knowle<?-ge j ,
f

of God' s E~sence. It is stated :Ln the Qur' an, that, There is

na~ght like Him .. ~6 and thus it seems impossible to 'sub-
, ,
1

stantiate this kind of~knowledge without involving anthro-

p~orphic elements in the description. Ma~md may there-

fo~e reject this demand with a popular excuse based on

the emotional 'character of the SfI s..}!'stem, that gnosis (;;.
( 'l,

77
,or illuminative knowledge is ineffable. ~ut the fact that
j

L
 !

104"
/
1

the prophet explained his experien}e during the same tirne

(
he received t~e revelation does not'justify the ineffability
of the gnostic experience. Actually the Prophet never
)
claimed ,the yision of God, and his widow, cA'ishah, said:
Whoev~i asserts that Muhammad saw his Lord, lies.78
Nevertheless, he described variou5 manners of hJ.s re-
velational experience.~

Sometimes it (revelation) cornes to me

like the reverberation of a bell, and
that i5 hardest on mei then it (the
unusual state) passes from me, and l
have present in mind 'from it what he
(God?) saidi and sometimes the angel
takes the forrn of a man for me, and ad- l,

dresses me, and l have present in mind

what he says. 79 ,; .

This ?escription of Prophetic experience 'disproves the

ineffabili ty that is claimed for -the gnostic ',experience,
andit justifies the modern concept maintaining that,
Bath, the element of acquaintance and.that of emotion are
present in aIl 9f our e~periences, and nei'ther is en-
tirely ineffable. 80 The gnostic's inability ta describe
o

his transcendental experience belies his claim. If this

i6 the case, the purpose which Sufism, according to Ma~md,
promises to qerve ls defeated. 1

1
"
"

\
,-----_......__ ....
 . '

, , ('

NOTES.

Chapter- II1<-

l AI-Nashshar, Nash'at al-Fikr'al-F~lsafI fI Il-Islam,

Vol. 1., pp.' 30-31.

"
2
According to Professer Watt, fhe doctrineC'
of
acquisition is traceable in M~Ctazilisrn theugh its form may
not be wholly identical with that in AShcarisrn. See W.H.
Watt, The Origin of the Islam~c Doctrine of Acquisition,
Jornal of the Royal Asiatic Secie~y, Vol.7l, (1943),
pp. 234-247; a1-Nashshar cites Ab HanIfah (d.150j760)
1
as the real founder of this concept. Se~ al-Nashshar, . \

Nash'at al-Fikr, Vol. l, p. 311.

3 Mahmd, Al-Tafkir al-Falsafi, p. 106.

4 Mahmd, HadhihI HayatI, p. 178,; .al~o Mahn\d,

QD
Mawqif al-Islam min a1-Falsafah, Al-Azhar, p. 308 .

6 See Yusuf al-DijwI, Al-Fatawa wa 11-Ahkarn Karamat

al-Awliya ' , Nr al-Islam 1 (1931), pp. 764-770; also al-Sayyid
Muhammad RashId Rida, A1-Murshidn wa '1-Murabbn - aw - a1-
Mutasawwifah wa, '1-Sfiyyn, Al-Manar 6 (1897-1899), pp. 722-730.

105

. ,- 1
1 ._~._---------
!
 \ .
106

1 -
7 See cAbd al-Muta Cal al-S~cldI, TarIkh al-Islah fI
(
'l-Azhar, Vol. 1 (Cairo:
,
MatbaCattal-ICtimad,
"0
n.d.),
__
P. SOi
~

also the Azhar's recognition of ~he Shaykhs of Sufi orders

:1 c . .
'indicates its prevalence in Egypt. See M. Abd al-Mu'min
c- .)
KhafajI, Al-Azhar fI Alf Am, Vol. 3 (Cairo:' Al-Minbariyyah,
f ~

1954), ,p. 96. 1

8 Mahmud, HadhihI Ha -' 1,' pp. 177, 178.

9 " 0 - _ c
,compare the conten~s of M~hmud's Al-Islam wa '1- Agl
(Cairo: Dar al-Kutub, 1966) with those of ~his Al-Fa~lasf
al-Muslim (cairo: Al-Angle, ""'1954) (Biegraphy of Ren Gunon)
J '"
and al-GhazzalI's Al-Mun9idh min al-Dalal (Cairo: Al-Anglo
al-Misriyyh, 1952.)

10 Mahmud, A1-TafkIr al-FalsafI, pp. 467-468.

Il See c Abbas Mahmud al-CAqqad, Al-TafkIr FarIdah

Islamiyyah (Cairo: Dar al-Qalam, n.d.). pp. 45-4~:

\
12 Ma~ud, AI-FaYlasf al-Muslim (Cair~a1-Ang10
al-Mi~riyyah, 1954), p. 12: Ma~ud, HadhihI ~ayatI, p .. 166.

,
13 Compare the co~tents of his Mantiq al-Tasawwuf with

those of Al-Islam wa ,'l-cAql and Manhaj al-Islah
c
Mujtama .
; .
al-ISlamI fi

14 Muhammad RashId Rida, Al-Murshidn wa '1-Murabbun

aw al-Mutasawwifah wa 'l-Sufiyyun, AI-Manar 6 (1897/8), pp.
722-730. j

c .
15 Mahmd, Mantiq
, .
a1-Tasawwuf, p. 22. /,

.'
1
1
~J
, ,
---..... ---c-----. ---.-----.. .-.- - - - - - -
 ..
107

(
('
16 S
the issues
1 the
:r;
articles PUb\~Shed by these scho1ars in
l~45, 621-650 of AI-Risi1ah.

. .
17 Sayyid Qutb, AI-Mantiq al-WijdanI wa 'l-cAqIdah,
A1-Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 629 (1945), -pp. 778-781;
, see. ,a1so
C
cAlI a1-.ran!awI, AI-CAqIdah bayn al- Aq1 wa 'i-~A!ifah;,
,Al-Risa1ah, Vo1.,13, No. 648 (Dec.~ 1945), pp. 1313-1315.

18 See c Abd a1-Mun c im Khallaf, 'l\l- C Aql al-Mu'min!

"'- -
aw a1-0In min TarIq al-Fikr, AI-Risalah, Vol. 13~ No. 650'
.
"(Dec., 1945), pp. 1367-1370--

19 See Chapter l of this thesis whereby these points

have been summarized,. pp. 10-12i see also Mahmd,
. HadhihI .
HayatI, p. 179; Mahmud, Mwqif al-Islam min a1-Falsafah,

pp 308 - 3 0 9

20 Mahmcl, Al-Islam, wa 'lc Ag1 ,' p. ,162.

21 Ibid., p. 164.

22 A. J. Ayer, 'The Central Questions of Philgsophy

'Bungay:'The Chaucer Press, 1973), pp. 137-140.

':.
23 Ibn Taymiyyah, Kitab a1-Radd' c a1a 'l~Mantiqiyyin
- c foL '-
(aeirut: Dar al-Ma rifah, n.d.), p. 107; Jalal a1-Din a1- &
- - Sawn al-Mantiq wa '1-Ka1arn
Suyuti, - c an"fann a1-Mantig wa
-.:.' Ci -- - $ "c
'1-Ka1am, ed. by Ali Sarni a1-Nashshar (Cairo: Matba at a1-
Sacidah, 1947), 'pp. 221-222; Ibn !Taymiyyah, Naqd ~l-Mantig, . ,l
c - c '- C i ,
ed. by Abd a1-Razzaq Hamzah and- S. Abd al-Rahman al-S~ni ~
~airo: MatbaCat al-Su~nah, 1951), pp. 207; se~ a1so ai-'
( Nashshar"Manahij a1-Bahth, pp. l66-167~

.,_.- ---,.~~-~--_ . _. ._..-.:-,,...::.._--=:::======

-~_
 108

24
'( , .. Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 233.
,

25 Ibid., p. 219.
1
26 Ma~ud, Al-Madras ah a1-Shadhiliyyah a+-~adIthah,
pp . 2 41 , 24 4 .'

27 Mahmud, Al-Islam wa '1-CAg1 , p. 143 .

028 -
Mahmud, A1-Madrasah a1-Shadhiliyyah al-HadIthah,
pp . 283, 33 oz
~

,.
30 Qur'an 3:7.

31 Mahmud, Al-Islam wa 'l-CAql, pp. 85-86.

32 se Chapter l, p. 12; Ma~ud, AI-TafkIr al-FalsafI,

pp. 241-242.

33 See ~l-CAqq~d, 'Al-Tafklr FarIdah Islamiyyah~ pp;

J' ._
..
167-168'.

34 - '.
Ma~ud, 'Man~iq al-Ta~awwuf, 'pp. 27-28.

1.
j
-
. 35 Mahmd, Al-Madrasah'al-Shadhiliyyah al-Had1thah,
i
pp.
~27-155; 341.
. ,

~ 36 ~ahmd, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, pp. 39-42; Mahmud,

'II
Al-TafkIr, p. 470.
~

..
'.
 , -~

, 109

.
?7 c Abd al-Ma-jld a1-N'aj jar, AI-CAq1 wa 'l-Sulk fI .' ~
C (, - , 'r
'l-Binyah' al-Is1amiyyh (Madanayn,Tunisia: -6 ~.
Matba at 'al-Janub,
J '

1980), p~ 132.

38 Ibid., pp. 1,3'3'-147.

"f "\.~

39 Qutb, AI-Mantiq al-Wij~nI,~~AI-Risalah, pp. 7~8-

781'
1 ' . . ,

al::an~aw:, 'A1_~cqIdah', Al~RisaJah~, pp~ 1313, 1315.

Mahmud, Man g al-Tasawwuf,' p. 16: cf. Qutb,

.
~AliMan"'t~q al-WijdanI~ AI-Ris:'lah, pp. 778-781.
,
\
. 1

\
42 Muhammad CAmarah,'ed., AI-Ac mal a1-Kamilah li Il-Imam
1
, ,
Muh~mmad CAbduh , Vol. 3 (Beirut: Al~Mlassasat al-CArabiyah,
(j , .
1972),; p~J 528, 530.
l\ . '
1.

43 cAbd al-Raziq, TamhId 1~-Ta'rIkh a1-Palsafah a1-

1
1
.
!slamiyyah, p. 74, Ahma Amin, ~uhr' al-Islam, Vol. 4 (Beirut:
1
Dar k1-Kitab a1- c Arabi, 1969); pp. 154;-164; Mu~ammad Ghallab,
AI-Tasawwuf a1-Muqara~ (Cairo: Nahdat Misr, 1956), pp. 33-37;
CI-- __ 1

Al- ~q~ad, Al-Tafkir'Fari~ah IslamIyyah, pp. 169~171

. '

, 44 Amin, ~~uhr al-Islam, Vol. 4,' p. 150; Gha11ab',

A1-Tasawwuf al-Muqaran, p. 29.
1 1

\
45 '
Ibid.~ p. 35; al-CAqqad, AI-TafkI;, p. 171; AmIn,
)
Zuhr al-Islam"p. 150.
o

46 Gha11ab, AI-Ta~awwuf al-Muqara~, pp-. 33-34; ~1-

(~ CAqq~, AI-TafkIr, pp. 167-168.

"'. ~
1
1

..
\ .. _~ ....... -_ .......
i$
~ -- --.. ~"'~
,
~
...
.--....,- -..'_ ..... ~j-~-~_ ... -..
~ ~
 - 1
" ,

.. 110
~
,. &

. 47 C
. r

Abduh, Risalat al-T_awhId, p. 46. ';f

i
'.
48 Mahrnud, Al-Islam wa 'l-c ql, p . ('

, "
. 91.

v
49 .
Ghallab, I-Tasawwuf al-Mugaran, J?
- 35. a
.,'
-

1
/
50 1
Runes, et al., Dicticrrary of Philosophy, p. 1~6.

51 Qu~ran 2;165.

.(

. '
52
. '
Ibid., 75:23

53 Ab Il-Hasan cALI ibn Ism~cIl.ai-AshcarI, Magalatal-

."
IslamiyyIn wa Ikhtiia:f al-Mu~allIn, ed. by c Abd al-HamId, Vol. l,
a
(Cairo: Al-Nahdah al-Misriyyah, 1969), pp. 287-290; See also .
'cAbd al-Jabbar'ibn Ahmad, Sharh al-tsul al-Khamsah, ed. by c Abd
al-KarIm Cuthrnan (Cairo: Maktabat wahbat, 1965), pp. 261~277.
,-
-'\

54 Mahmud, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, P', 42 .

, 1

1
.
-

55 Mahmud, Al-TafkIr al-FalsafI, p. 474.

i
1
. 57 Muhammad RashId'Ri~a, oTaf~Ir al-Qurlah al-~akIm al-
.....
ShahIr bi TafsIr af-Manar, Vol. 9 (Cairo: Dar al-Manar, . 1367 .
1.
-1.
A.B.), pp. 166-19~8~ .

58 Abu
Bakr Muhammad, Al-KalabadhI., AI-Tacarruf li-
Madhhab Ahi al-Tasawwuf; ed. by c Abd al-HalIm Mahrnud and Taha 1
( c Abd al-Baql suru~ (Cairo: ,AI-Halab'i, 196'0), p. 43 i c Abd al-Karim ,J
1
.. ibn ,Hawazin al~Qusbayr1, -Al-Risalah al-Qushayriyyah fi c 11m al-
Tasawwuf (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-CArabiyyah, 1912), p. 160':

.
~ ...
-
,, "
. -- ---_.-.-- ---- ~,,-- ---------------
 III

, , 0
"
59 Mahrnd, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p.'42.
i

'r

.'
,
6~ A.S. Hornby, Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of'
Current En~lish (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974)~ p. 774.

c 65 Hassett, et al., The Philosophy of Human Knowing,

;

p 18.

66 Mahrnd, Mantiq al-Ta~awwuf, pp. 37-39

'2
/
67 Mahrnd, Al-TafkIr al-FalsafI, p. 470
.,
" 68 ,-
,
Walter Kaufman, ed., Critique of Religion and !
1
, .. Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton Universi'ty Press, 1978), p. 318.
t
'69
Q Ibid. 1
1
1
, "

J
t
Madkhal ila 'l-Tasawwuf, p. 135

.71 Ma hm u,
dM
.
' a 1 - Tasawwu f , p. 24
antlq
,
(
72 A1-Kalabadh1,
, . AI-Tacarruf, p. 67.; trans. ,
The Doctrine of the S'fls, p. 51.

_ ~4 ___ --'-":"'-"'_"';~""""""----------=--------
 112

1
73
Kaufman, CritIque of Religion, pp. 108-114;
.
see
1
( !
1
,
;

aiso H.A. Pr~chard, Knowing and Believing, in the Knowledge

r
and 'Belief, ed. by A. Phillips Griffi ths. (London: Oxford
niversity Press, 1967), pp. 60-68~ Norman ~alcolm, Knowledge
and Belief, in The Theory of Knowledge, ed. by J.V. Canfield
and F.H. Donnell, Jr. (New York:, Meredith Publishing Company,
1
1964), pp. 136-147.

74
>
ta Kaufman, Critique of Reason, p. 109.

75 :J;bid. \
1 ~

76
Qur'an. 43: Il.

77
Kaufman, Critique of Religion, pp. 314-322.

1
1.

,
78 Arberry, The Doctrine of the SufIs, p 26. \ 1

1

~

79
Watt:, Islamic Revelation, p. 16.

1
80
Kaufman" Critique of Reli~ion, p. 318; see also
A.J. Ayer, The Central Questions of Philosophy, pp. 4-7 ~

( {
 '-

'"

CONCLUSION

c Abd al-HalIm Mahmd wrote his works in reaction

to modernity in Egypt but, in our view, he has not been
aple to justify his negative stand. Islam, whose unchange-
able revelation appeared at a specifie period in time,
needs to be reconciled with the various changing exigencies
... ~;.
of man's life, but Mahmd has failed to admit this facto
Concerning tpe central aspect of his thought; we have at-
ternpted to show in the preceding chapters that he falls
in rnany self-contradictions regarding the process of how
to know God. The main themes of this study are recapitu-
lated in the following,paragraphs.
In the first chapter, we analyz.ed Mahmud" s denial
of the benef~t of using the senses in acquiring the
'knowled~e of God, for in his view they perce ive only the
1\ 1\
phySica:l objects with',which God is net idential, Senses i,
cannot led us to (the ,knowledge of) the Unseen since we
-
..
canno t percelve t l
1 . His statement was proven to be eb-
jectionable because it contains two aspects, one is true
'and the other false. As Mahmd maintains, it is true

c ([Jfl ,
that God cannet be logica1ly or religious}y considered a
cerpor~a1 being, buJ His Essence does not ~em te be p.er-
, .
,\
\
"

~,
"(
113

L
 d 1
114

cept:ib1j: in any case to man, be the rnethod of seeking Him

t sensory or otherwise,o and this ls in a:~ordanee wi th the

Qur'anic verse cited by Mahmd himself, There is naught

like Him (GOdJ.2 Therefore, God is knowable only through

His signs which are per~eptible to "man's senses. Mind~

less of self-contradiction, Mahrnd affcirm.s this fact when

he says, By showing the natural link of one part of the

globe with tHe other, scientific conclusions may provide

the religiorlists with proof that the world does not exist

by mere chance but as a creation of God.3

Similar1y, Mahmd' s criticism of rationality was

summar~zed in the first chapter and detai1ed in the second.

, 1 He ini,tial1y postulates his objection on the division of
!
the Qur' anic text into the c1ear and the ambiguous verses
J denying the knowabil:i,ty of the latter to man, but r~ contra-
dicts this negative view when justifying the SfI pursuit
.
of metaphys ics. The we'akness of Mahmd' s cri ticism of

philosophie methods was verif ied also in the same chapter 1

and the utility of logic was asserted, though i~s limitation

was shawn to be indisputable. 1

In other wor,ds, man' s

fa11ibility does not prevent the ,use, of reason in any as?

pect of, human knowledge" be i t physics or metaphysics, ~

because inquiry is basic to the nature of man who attains

tranquili ty, es~ecially on creedal issues, on,'ly through

intellectual satisfaction. On account of h~s adoption of

c Plotinism analyzed in the second chapter, Mahmd revokes his

total re,jection of the use of reason and confines it to 'the 1

 115

initial stage in the P~OCSS of acquiring m~taphysical

( V
knowledge. "

In the third chapter,' Mahmd' s advocacy and con-

, cept of Sut ism were treated. The extent of the fnfluence,

of Neo-platonism on .gnostic Sufism was also discussed.

Wi th Ma~md' S atlopton of Plotinism, he and other SfIs

o
fuse :;>lotinus,' "Communion with God'in the Islamic concept

of knowledge. Atually, th~se notions are not consistent

wi th each other especi~lly regardiI}g the method of achieving

, ,

the knowledge of God. Ih Neo-platonism, GOd is One and

..
above essenoe, and He'does not possess any specifie, attri-
o '

butes, though H~ is irnmedia~e~y ponderable through ecstatic

,
contact. He creates aIl things and is superior te every-

'. thing orig:i.nated bi Hi~. 4 . In contrast, Islam teaches

tha~ God possesses an,Exalted Essence [al-dhat al-CaliyyahJ

which is" not lmmediately perceptible to man, but ,ta ;hich

,o aIl 'the ab~olu~ely perfect ,attributes are aseribable. In
1

other:words, 'the orthodox Muslim theologians hold that

God [Allh] i5 knowable only through His signs and attributes,

and this 'notion is fa und in many Qui' anie verses and J

Prophetie trflditions such as, There is naught like Him, 5

and Ponder: the bounties (or creatures) of Gad, not His'

1
, 6
Essence lest you perish. Hence,_ the modern view which

considers the developed form of Sufisrn, especially gnostic

Sufism, ta be a deviation from true ~slam seems plausible.

Rrardless of his man9 self-contradictions, Mahmud' 5 sug-

91s"tion ta endow Sufism 'with cognitive au~hority in the

-....------,---------
.'. ~~-_.......--.-.- ....--- ...
 116
1
\

study of metaphysics contradict\ the commendation made by

(
the Prophet who said, I am \l~av,~ng ~i th you (i. e., the
l
Muslims) two things and you i11 ney'r go astray 50 long
as you hold to thorn. They a 0 thylBOOk of God and the
7 r
Tradition of His Messenger. L~/

Furthermore, an ol:ljec ive scrutiny shows that'

Sufism ,cannet be accepted as a method, for if the con-
clusion reached through Sufism .~ a1ready accessible in
both the revelation and philosop y, the SfI process then
\
.
seems to be not of knowing but of onfirming the acquired
knowledge.
\

Ta conclude this study, Ma~mh~s idea of making

Sufism an authoritative method of acqui ing tpe knowledge
1
of Gad, or metaphysics in general, i5 obj ctionab1e, It ~

is true that a man may be endowed with an inspired know-

ledge, buf the certitude of his experienc is not enough
to make it acceptable to others until he is able to justify
his c1aim. If, according to Mahmd's criticism ofathe
modern method" , Islam is a faith to be embrated and teacttings
1

to be implemented, Sufisrn is not, and cannot be, "a means of

attaining knowledge but rather righteousness. Though
many Muslims, like Mahmd, believe that Sufism 1eads to
the knowledge of God, what they ident~fy as knowledge
is in fact faith and cannot be contrasted with scho1ar1y j
l
1
rational enterprises of inquiry. Finally, Mahmd's
1
c m~thod appears' to be invariably circular and superf1uous
because it establishes the established. In our view, the
j
t

- ---~~-"- ---_. -- ~
--~~r-~------~.~----_.----------~===-~I~====~~
 117
\

appropr~ate rnethod of acquiring the knowledge of God re-

mains reason aided by Divine guidance.

.
'

..

1
:
,
.
d,

,
r
'f
l
'~

< '

-~~~~=========-=-==~.-
l_ _ _. ___ . __ -____ ... _. __ _
.~,_ ~

- - " t.....
: --:-._-;- - - - - - - _ _ _
 .

,
NOTES

CONCLUSION

1 Mahmd, Mantiq a1~asawwuf, p. 16.

." .
2 Qur 1 an 4 2' : 11 .

3
Mahmd, Manhaj a1-Islah, p . 92.

4
4
Sahakian, History of Philosophy, pp. '82-85. ,

5
Qur'an 42:11

i
6
Mahmd, Al-Islam, p. 91.

. .
wa Sunnat Khatam al-Anbi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
al l-MursalIn (Beirut: Dar
al-Fath, 1978), p. ,22.

,C
c

118

.'
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arabic Sources

CAbd al-Raziq, Mustafa. Tamhid li-Ta'rIkh al-Falsafah al-

!slamiyyah. Caire: MatbaCat Lajnat al-Ta '.lIf, 1959.

c Abduh , Muhammad. Risalat al-TawhId. Caire: Matba~at Nahdat

Misr, 1956.

Al-Islam w~ '1-Nasraniyyah mac al-cIlm wa

'l-Madaniyyah. Cairo: Dar al-Manar, 1373 A.H.

Al-Islam DIh al-cllm wa 'l-Madaniyyah. Ed. by

Tahir al-TanahI. Caire: Dar a1-Hilal, n.d.

A1-Sha kh Muhammad cAbduh ba n al-Falasifah wa

, l-KalamiyyIn.
. -
Ed. by Sulayman DunYa. 2 ols. ,

C~ire: cfsa ~l-BabI 'l-HalabI, 1958.

c Abduh , Muhammad Muhammad IsmacIl. Al-Fikr.al-IslamI. Cairo:

Dar al-wiraq~h~ n.d.

Ab RIdah, Muhamma~. c Abd a1-HadI; ed. Rasa'il al-KindI .

\

al-Falsaf iyyah. Cairo: MatbaCat al-ICtimad,. 1950.

..
Ab Zahrah, Muhammad. Ibn Taymiyyah. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.d.

hl-AhwanI, Ahmad Fu'ad. A}-Falsafah al-Islamiyy~h. Cairo:

\

Dar al-Qalam, 1962.

AI-KindI Faylasf al-cArab. ~aire: al-M'aSsasah
----:
al-Misriyyah, n.d.
( .. 1
MaCanI 'l-Fa1safah. Caire: Al~Ha1abI, 1947.
!
119
. 1"
"-- -~ !. ---~_ ...~ --, --":::1 -
. '._ .. _. _L ________ .-..
 120

Al-AmidI, (AlI_ibn AbI cAlI ibn Mu~amrnad. Al-I~k~m fI U~ul

( al~kam. 4 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-CIlmiyyah, ()

1980.
,'
Amin, Ahmad. .
Duha
, 'l-Islam. 3 vOl,s, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab
a 1- CAr ab l , 19 6 9
-
Fajr al-Islam. Beir~t: Dar al-Kitab al: C Arabi,
-

1969.
Faydl al-Khatir. 8 vols. Cairo: al-Nahdah aI-
Misriyyah, 1949.
... c-
Yawrn al-Islm. Cairo: Dar al-Ma arif, 1952.
Zuhr al-Islam. 4 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab

al- C Arabi,
-
1969.
AI-CAqqad, cAbbas Mahmud. . c Allah .
al-Tijariyyah, 1972.'

CAqa'id
- .
al-MufakkirIn fI 'l-Qarn al-cIshrIn. Cairo:

AI-Anglo, n.d.

1947 .
.$
AI-Falsafah al-QUr'aniyyah.

,
,
Cairo: Dar Nahdat Misr,

Al-TafkIr FarIdah Islamiyyah. Cairo: Dar al-Qalam,

n.d.
. AI-AC sam,
- C -
Abdul-Amir. Ibn al-Rawandi's Kitab Fadihat al-
i

MuCtazilah. Beirut: Edition CUwaydat,1975-1977.

CAzqul, KarIm. Al-CAql fI 'l-Islam. Beirut: Maktabat Sadir,
1946.

BadawI, c Abd al-Rahman. Madhahib al-Islam1yyln. 2 vols.

Belrut: Dar al- c llm, 1979.

(

L . . - -. --....-.._---+.--~--------------_ ....
 121

, '

..
{:
1 Madkhal Jadid ila 'l-Falsafah.
-c-
Kuwait: Wakalat
,.
al-Ma~bu at, 1975.

Manahij al-Bahth al- cIlml. Cairo: Dar al-Nahdah

al-CArabiyyah, 1973.
,
ed. Mantiq
i
Aristu.
i
3 vols. Cairo: Or al-Kutub

al~Mi~riyyah, 1948.

al-BahI, Muhammad. Al-Fikr al-Islam! fI Tatawwurih. Cairo;

Maktabat Wahbah, 1981.
~
AI-Janib-al-Ilahi -
- min al-Ta'fkir al-Islami. 2 vols.

Cairo: AI-HalabI, 1951.

AI-BaqillanI. Kitab al-TarnhId. Ed. by R.Y. McCarthy. Beirut:

al-Maktabah al-Sharqiyyah, 1957.

, 0

BaYYmI , M.:R. Shu}:mhat Za' :ah hawl al-TafkIr- al-olnI'.

C'airo: Is1amic Research Academy, 1970.

Bulay~ c Izz al-oln.

Khatam al-Anbiya' wa 'l-MursalIn. -

Beirut: Dar al-Fathi

1978 .

.A1-DimashqI, Jamal al-Dln al-QasimI. Tarlkh al-Jahrniyyah wa

'1-Mu Ctazi1ah. Beirut: Mu'assasat al-Ris~lah, 1979.

Qadat ,?l-Fikr: Ibn Rshd Fayla~f Qurtubah .

FakhrI, Majid.
.
Beirut~ al-Kathllkiyyah, 1960.

Al-FarabI, Ab Nasr.
c-
Rasa'il FarabI.
1
.
",Haydarabad: Matba c at

al-Ma arif, l344-~A.H.

Ghallab, Muh~mmad. Al-Tasawwuf al-Muqaran. .

Cairo: Nahdat

.
Misr, 1956 .
AI-Ghazzali, Ab Hamid. Tahafut al-Fa1asifah. Edited wi~h

introduction and commentary by Sulayman Dunya. Cairo:

al-Ha1abI, 1947.

1
o
,
\
t
. -:. ,---- -----'---'=-
 122

c - C -
Mi yar a1- Ilm'fi Fann al-Mantiq. Eq. by MU~y

(~ -
al-Din -
Sabri -
al-K~rdi and C -
Abd al-Qadir Ma cruf
- a1- '"
1

Kurdl. Cairo: MatbaCat Kurdistan al-CIlmiyyah,

a
.
1329 A.H.

Mahakk a1-Nazar fi 'l-MantiqJ Ed'. by Muhammad Badr

al-DIn al-NacsnI. Beirut: Dar a1-Nahdah al-Hadithah,
,
1966.

A1-Munqidh min al-Dalal. Ed. by c Abd al-Ha1im Mahrnd.

"
Cairo: Al-Anglo, 1952.

Hijaz~, CAwad Allah Jad.

. Min AClam al-Fikr al-Islm!: Ibn

a1-Qayyim wa Mawqifuh min al-Tafkir al-Islam!. Caire:

- -c'
Dar a1-Tiba ah "al-Muharnrnadiyyah, 1960.
-
Caire: Dar ~l-Ma
c-
arif, ,n.d.

Ibn Bajjah. Rasa'i1 al-I1ahiyyah. Edited with Introduction

by Majid FaKhr!.
t
Beirut:
1
Dar a'l-Nahar, 1968.
~ [,). J
1

Ibn Hanbal, Ahmad.' Al~Radd Ca1~ 'l-Jahmiyyah wa 'l-Zanadiqah.

c - ci -
Ed. by" Abd al-Rahman Umayrah. ,Riyadh: Dar al-Liwa",

1977.

Ibn al-JawzI. Naqd a1- c lm wa '1- c U1ama.' aw TalbIs IblIs

.Cairo: Al-Mun~riyyah, n.d.

TafsIr a1~Qur'an a1- c Az1rn.

Ibn KathIr.
" . 6 vols. Beirut: Dar

al"'Fikr, 1970.

cait::al-~m:m,
1
-c
Ibn Qayyim. A1-Sawa ~9 a1-Mursalah. 1338 A.H.

Ibn Rushd. Falsafat I!2 n Ru~hd. Beirut: Dar al'-Afaq al-

JadIdah, 1979.
.
c- ~
" . - bacd al-TabI c ah'.
TalkhIs ma

by c Uthman
- -Amin
- . Cairo :. al-HalabI, 1958.
'l
Edited w)ith introduction

1
t
1

_J
,. ~i--~-

.
~.---- -.~ -.. -- ----
 ,
...

123

Ibn tayrniyyah.
c- c
Dar' Ta arud al- Agl wa 'l-Nagl.
' .
Ed. by
( - -
_ Mu~anunad Rashad Salim . . Cairo: Dar al-Kutub, 1971.
- ~

Al-IklIl fI 'l-MutashabiH wa 'l-Ta'wIl.

i'
Cairo:

..
Maktabat Ansar al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah, n.d .
~ /
-c - -
Majrnu at al-Rasa'il wa 'l-Masalil. 5 vols. Ed by
Muhanunad RashId Rida. Caire: al-Manar, -1341-1349 A.H.

Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah f~ Nagd Kalarn aI-

l
-C
~hi ah wa 'l-Qadariyyah. 3 vols. n.p., n.d.

Naqd al-Mantiq. Ed. by Muhammad ibn c Abd aI-

l

Razzaq Hamzah and Sulayman ibn c Abd al-Rahman 'al-sanIC.

Cairo: MatbaCat al-Sunnah al-Muha~adiyyah, 1951 .

.
p Kitab ~l-Radd cal~ Il;MantiqiyyIn. Beirut: Dar
C
al-Ma rifah, n.d.

AI-Risalah al-Madaniyyah. Caire: Artsar al-Sunnah

.
al-Muhammadiyyah, 1946 .
.
~l-jI, c Abd al-Rahman Ahmad. AI-Mawaqif fI, c I1m al-Kalam.

Beirut: c-
Alarn al-Kutub, n.d.
c Ishri,
- Jalal.
- -
~aqiqat
-
al-Falsafah al-Islamiyyah. Cairo:

Dar al-Kitab, n.d.

Al~KalabadhI, Ab Bakr Muhammad. Al-Tacarruf li-Madhhab

Ahl al-Ta~qwwuf. Ed. by c Abd al-HalIm Mahmd and

Taha c Abd al-Bagi Surr. Cairo: Al-HalabI, 1960.

1

Kballaf, C~d a~-~ahhab. Al-Siyasah al-SharCiyyah. Cairo:

Dar al-Ansar, 1977.

,
Al-~hayyt. Kitab al,Intisar. Beirut: al-KathulIkiyyah, 1957. ,d
, 1

( - d, cAbd a'1 - Ha 1~
Mahmu ,lIn. Falsafau Ibn Tufayl wa Ri~alatuh.

Cairo: Al-Anglo, n.d.

()

t
1
~L
 124 \

1
,)
Al-Islam wa 'l-CA~l. Caire: Dar al-Kutub al~

HadIthah, 1966. J

AI-Tafkir al-Falsafi' ..fI Il-Islam. Berut: Dar

al-Kitab al-LubnanI, 1974.:' 1

______ ~_ AI-F?Ylasf al-Muslim. ckiro: Al-Angle, 1954:

_______ . '"AI-Madrasah al-Shadhiliyyah al-HadItheih wa Imam~ha.

-
Caire: Dar al-Kutub al-HadIthah,
. ,,\ n.d. ,.
-----,..
~
Mugaddimah
. fl'Mantig
- .
. .-
al-Tasawwuf.
. Edi ted together

with al-Ghazzali's al-Mungidh. C~iro: AI-Anglo, 1952.

ed. AI-Tacarruf l i Madhhab Ahl 'al-Tasawwuf l i

!l-KalabadhI. .
Cairo: Maktabat al-HalabI, 1960

ed. Al-Tariq ila Allah aw Kitab al-Sidq li

'l-Kharraz. Dar al=Kutub al-~ad~thah, t9~4.
5rbba wa 'l-Islam. Cairo: Dar al-Jihad, 1959~

AI-Hamd
l
li-Allah, HadhihI Hayati. Cairo: Dar' aI-

Macarif, 1976.

Ma~d, C~d al-Qadir. AI-Falsafah al-~fiyyah

Cairo: Al-Macrifah, 1966-1967.

Mahrnd, c Abd a1-Qadtr. AI-Fikr al-IslamI wa '1-Fa1safat,al-

Mu c aridahfl Il-HadIth. 2 vols. Khartoum: Khartoum

o
uni;ersity Press, 1971. "

Ma~ud,.: ZakI Naj Ib. Na::ariyat al-Ma crifah, airo: Wizarat

al-Irshad al-QawmI, 1956.

C' -
Al-Ma quI wa 'l-Lama quI.
- c- Beirut: Dar al-Shurq,
, . 1978. '.'
J

!
t
c AI-ManfI, Mahmd Ab 'l-Fayd.

al-aaqIgah al-Mutlaqah.
Tahafut al-Falsafah c an Dark

Cairo: al-Nahdah, 1970.

~
,
f
<
1

---.- - , . - - - - ... --1

1
 -
1:25

Nah~a~ Mi~r( li69.

AI-MunasibI, AI-Harith ibn Asad. AI-CAql wa,Fahrn al-Qur'an.

Ed. Hus~yn al-QuwwatlI. Cairo: Dar a17Fikr,-i978.

AI-Mpnqjjid, Salah al-DIna Al-Islam wa 'l-CAql. Beirut:,Dar

al-Kit~ al-JadId, 1974.

Muruwwah, ~usayn. Al-Nazcah al-Maddiyyah fI 'I-Falsafah al-

"
CArabiyyah al~Islamiyyah. 2 vols. Be~rut: Dar al-
, t' ,

FarabI, 1~78-1~79.

Musa, Jalai Muhammad cAbd al-Harnld. Nash'at al-AshCariyyah wa

Ta,::-awwuruha. Beircl': Dar al .... Kitab al-LubnanI, 1975.-

Musa, Muhammad Yusuf. Bayn al-Dln wa 'l~FaIsafah. Cairo:

- al-Ma c-
Dar arif, 1959.
'.
A~-Najjar, cAbd al-Majld.
"
AlCAql wa 'l-Sulk fI 'l-Binyah

al-Islamiyyah. Tunis: Matba C at al-Janub,

- 1980.

Najjar, RamzI. Al-Falsafah al-CArabiyyah c abr al-Tarlkh.

Beirut: D~r al-Afag al-JadIdah, 1977.

Najjar, FAM., ~d. AI-FarabI's Fusul Muntazacah. -Beirut: Dar

el-Ma,sreq Publishers, 1971.

Manahij al-Bahth cind MufakkirI

, l-Islam. - c-
Cairo: Dar a1-Fikr al- Arabi, 1947.

Nash'at al-Fikr ai-Falsaft fI 'l-Islam. 3 vols.

Cairo: Dar al-Macarif, 1969.

1 AI-QurtubI, Muhammad ibn Ahmad aI-AnsarI. AI-Jami c li Ahkam

al-Qur'an. 20 vols. Cairo: Dar al~Katib al-cArabI,

1967.

,
___ ~ _'------------Ilt:t:-'----------------------:
 12,6

AI-Qushayri, cAbd a1-Ka~Im ibn Hawazin,. AI-Risalah al-

( Qushayriyyah fI c Ilm al-Ta~awwuf. Cairo; Dar al-Kutub
al-CArabiyyah, 1912.

.
AI-Raghib al-ISfahanI, Husayn ibn Muhammad. AI-Mufradat fi
GharIb' al-Qur'an. Ed. by Muhammad Sayyid.Kayla~I.
-
Dar al-Ma C rifah, n.d. -
Eeirut:
- - c Abd al-Sattar.
AI-Rawi, - Al- c Aqi wa 'I-Hurriyyah. Beirut:

AI-Mu'assasah al- CArabiyyah, 1980.
-C
Rosenthal, M. and YudIn R., eds. Al-Mawsu ah al-Falsafi~yah .
1
Tr~ns. by SamIr Karam. Be1rut_:, Dar al-TalICah,
1974 .

.~' . Al-$abunI, Muhammad cALI. -

. . Mukhtasar Taf~ir Ibn Kathir. 3 Vols ~
Beirut: Dar al-Qur 1 an al-KarIm, 198!.
Safwat
;
al-TafasIr. 3 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Qur 1 an
al-KarIm, 1981.
Al-SadiqI, Muhammad. Hiwar bayn al-I1ahiyyIn wa 'l-MaddiyIn.
Beirut: MatbaCat al-Watan, n.d.
AI-SacIdI, c Abd al-MutaCl. TarIkh al-Islah fi Il-Azhar.
,
vols. Cairo: MatbaCat al-ICtimad, n.d.
salIba, JamII. AI-Dirasat al-Falsafiyyah. 2 vols. Damascus:
\
Damascus Qn,iversity Press, 1964.
AI-MuCjam a1-FalsafJ. 2 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab
al-LubnanI, 1978.
- -
Tarikh al-Falsafah al-"cArab~yxah.
, Beirut: Dar al-
Kitab, 1970.
i

?\l-Salih, SubhI and Jabr, FarId., trans.

Falsafat al-Fikr
al-DInI bayn al-Islam wa '1-MasIhiyyah. 3 v()ls.

-- ;;
______ ------------1\,..-_ ----- -,---.================-=-=--:::-.
 127

li (Introduction la thologie Musulmane.) By Louis

Gardet et G. Anawati~ Beirut: Dar al-cIlm li '1-
Malay In, 1969.
Sha1tut,. Mahrnd. Al-Islam: cAqIdah wa SharIcah. Beirut:
Dar al-Shurq, n.d.
".
ShukrI, GhalI. AI-Nahdah wa 'l-Suqut fI 'i-Fikr,al-Misri
- -c
al-Hadith. Beirut: Dar al-Tali ah, 1978 .

Al-SuyutI, Jalal al-Dln. Sawn al-Mantiq wa 'l-Kalam c an Fann
al-Mantiq wa 'l-Kalam. Ed. by cAlI SarnI al-Nashshar.
Cairo: MatbaCat al-Sacadah, 1947.
Al-Tabar!, Ibn JarIr'. Kitab Jami C al-Bayan fI TafsIr al-

Qur,an. 30 vols. Cairo; Al-MatbaCah al-Kubra al-
AmIriyyah, 1329 A.H. , 0

Al-TaftazanI, Ab 'l-Wafa 'l.-GhunaymI.. Madkha1 ila 'l-Tasawwuf

al-Islam!. Cairo: Dar al-Thaqafah, 1974.
AI-Tahawl, Ab Jacfar.o Mukhtasar Sharh al-CAqIdah al-:a~awiyyah .
. Baghdad: Dar al-NadhIr, n.d.
Al-TurkI; CAbd Allah ibn,c Abd al-Muhsin. Asbab Ikhtilaf
. al-
Riyadh: Maktabat' a1~,Riy~ al-~adIthah, 1977.
Fuqaha'.
co
Al-TsI, CAbd Allah ibn cAlI al-Sarraj. Kitab al-Luma fI 0

' 'V '

1
'l-Tasawwuf .Ed. and l'rans. by R.A. Nicholson. ~

,f
Leyden: E.J. Brill;, 1914. 1
cU~hmn, Fathi. Al-Fikr al-IslamI wa 'l-Tatawwur. Cairo:
Par al-Qalam, n.d.
WajdI, Muhammad ':Farid. Al-Islam fI cAsr 1- c Ilm. Beirut: ,Dar

al-Kitab al-cArabI, 1967.
( 1
1
t;

\
. ,
- -_._--------~------
J
 128

Zarou, K.D. A1-~ayah a1~CI1miyyah fi '1-Sham fI '1-Qarnayn

al-Awwal wa '1-ThanI li 'l-Hijrah. Beirut: Dar

,al-Afag al-JadIdah, 1971.

Zaydan, Mahmd. Manahij al-Ba~th al-da1safI. Alexandria:

, ,
Ha~'ah al-Mi~riyyah, 1977: 1
ZInah, Husna. A1~CAq1 c ind al-Mu C tazi1ah. Beirut: Dar

al-Afaq a1-JadIdah, 1978.

zucbub, cAdil. Minhaj 'a1-Bahth c ind al-Ghazza1I. Beirut:

Mu'assasat a1-Risa1ah, 1980.

J \

.J
1
\
, ~

(,

- -- ",J
-_ ... ---,.,........ ... _~ .. -.... ~--
... '
 129

(
English ,Sources
" .
l ,F

Adams, C.C. Islam shd MOderism in Egypt. London: Oxford

~ University Jress l 1933.

Arberry, A.J. An Introduction ta the History of Sufism.

London: Oxford University Press, 1942.

Reve1tion and Reason. London: 1957.

The Koran Int~rpreted. Oxford University Press,

1
{ 1979.

Archer, John Clark., Mystica1 Elements in MOhammeq. ,New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1924.p

Ayer, A .T." The Central Questions of Philosophy. Harntond-

sworth, Middlesex: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1973.

The problem o,f Kno~ondon: MacMi1lan,1

1

1956.

Bachhuber, A.H. Introduction to Logic. New York: App1eton-

Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957.

- Berkhof, L. Systematic Theo1ogy. Michigan: ,Eardmans

,. - - Publishing Co., 1977.

Burckhardt, T. An Introduction of SfI Doctrine.

i
Welling-

borough, Northamptonshire: Thorsons Publishers

Lrnited, 1976 .
l,
Canfie1d, John V. and Franklin H. qonnell, Jr. Readings in
~
The Theory of Knowledge. New York: Meredith Publish-

ing Company, 1964.

, 1
Chittiek,.W.C. The Sufi Doctrine of Rumi: An Introduction.

Offset Press Ine., n.d. 1

"

1
1
i
. -.
 130

Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic. London: The Mac-

Millan Company, 1970.

Cornfor~, F.M. From Religion ~o Philosophy. Atlantic

l, Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1980.

Descartes, R. Philosophical Essays. Trans. by L.J. Lafleur.

Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merri1 Educational PUblishing,

1977.
o
.h Fakhri, M. A History of Is1amic Philosophy. New York:

Columbia University Press, 1970.

Faz1-ur-Rahman, M. Islamic Methodo1ogy in History. Karachi:

Central Institute of Islamic Research, 1965.

Islam. Chicago and London: University of Chicago

Press, 1979.
,
. d

Flew, A. and A. MacIntyre. New Essays in Philoso:ehica! Theo-

1
~. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964.
\
Frost, S.E. Basic Teachin9:s of the Grea{ PhilosoEhers.

New York: Doubleday & Company" Inc., 1962.

Gibb, ~H.A.R. Moharnmedanism. New York~ Oxford University

Press, 1962.

Goldziher, l. Introduction to Is1amic Theol09:Y and Law.

Trans. by Andras and Ruth Hamori. Princeton, New

Jersey: Pri~ceton Uniyersity Press, 1981.

Griffiths, A. Phi1lips, ed. Know1edge and Belief. London:

Oxford University Press, 1967. /

Gusdorf, G. Trait de Mtaphysique. Paris: Colin, 1956.

c Haack, Susan. Philosophy of Logics.

University Press, 1978.

Cambridge: Cambridge

(
 131

!Hammond, Robert. The Philosophy of Alfarabi and i ts Infl\l-

ence on Medieval Thought. New York: The Hobson
',I rI
Book Press, 1971.
Hartnack, J. Philosophical Problems. New York: Humanities

Press, 1971.

Hassett, J.D., et.al. The Philosophy of Human Knowing.

Westminister, Maryland: The Newman Press " 1961.

Hobblethwaite, B.L. The Problems of Theology. Cambridge:

. . Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Hospers, John. An Introduction to Philosophical Ana1ysis.~

New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1, Inc., 1967.

Ibn Rushd. Averroes on the Harmony of Religion 'and Philosophy.

1

Trans1ated"and supplemented with introduction and

notes by G.J. Hourani. London: Luzac and Company,

,,
1961.

Averroes' Tahafut al-Tahafut. 2 vols. ~Trans. by

1
Simon Van Den Bergh. London: Luzac and Company, 1969.

Iqbal, M. The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.

Lahore: Ashraf Pressi 1951.

A1-KindI. Al-KindI 's Metaphysi,cs. Trans. by -Alfred L. Ivry'.

---------
New York: State University of New York Press, 1974 . .
Landesman, Charles, ed. The Foundations of Knowledge.
} )
~nglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1, Inc.,

1970.

L~ne, E.W. An Arabic-English Lexicon. 8 vls. Beirut:

Librairie du Liban, 1968.

Macdonald, D.B. Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence

, .

. ,..J
 132

and Constitutional Theory. New Delhi, India:

o'Amarko Book Agency, 1973.

McCall, R.T. Basic Logic. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1952.

Morewedge, Parvis, ed. Islamic Philosophical Theology. (

Albany: State University of New York Pr~ss, 1979.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Sufi EJsays. New york: Schocken

Books, 1977.

Need1eman, ~., ed. The Sword of Gnosis. Baltimore, Mary-

land: Penguin, 1974.

Nicholson, R.A. The Mystics New York: Schocken

Books, 1975.

Parrinder, Geoffrey. Reli ions.

\

New York: Oxford University Press, ~6.

Pears, D.F., ed. The Nature of Metaphysics. London: Mac-

Millan, 1965. , /

Randall, J~ Herman and Justus Buchler. Philosophy: An Intro-

duction. New York: Barnes & Noble, n.d.

Runes, Dagobert D. et. al. Dictionary of Philosophy. Toto~a,

New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1979.

Russell, Bertrand. History Qf Western Philosophy. London:

George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1957.

The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford

University Press, 1968.

Sahakian, W.S. History of Philosophy. New York: Barnes &

Noble, 1968.
Sheikh, M. Saeed, ed. Studies in Iqbal's Thought and Art.
;, ,
Lahore: Zarreen Art Press, 1972.
 133

Smith, Jane,I. An Historical and Semantic Study of the Term

Islam as Seen in a Sequence of Qur'an Commentaries.

Ph.D. Diss. Harvard 1970. Missoula, Montana:

Montana University Press, 1975.

Watt, W.M. The Formatiye Period of Islamic T~ought. Edin-

burgh: Edinburgh:university Press, 1973.

Pree Will and Predestination in Early Islam.

London: Luzac, 1948.

The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1962.

________ . Islamic Philosophy anq Theology. Edinburgh:

E~inb~rgJ uni:ersity Press, 1962.

\

Islamic Revelation in the Modern World. Edinourgh:~

Edinburgh Universi~y Pr~ss,1969. '

Wensinck, A.J. and Mensing, J.P. Concordance et Indices de

la Tradition Musulmane. 7 vols. Leiden: E.J ..,srill,

1943.
,,
'1
Wensinck, A.J. The Muslim Creed. London: Cambridge University J

Press, 1932.

Williams, J.A. Islam. New York: George Braziller, 1962.

J
- ,- -
- ------
_________ ~~~~~.-~~.--_r~~--,--~==~~==========::
~
 134

Articles

Abu- Ridah,
'- Muhammad c c c
. Abd al-Hadi. Al- Aql ind al-GhazzalI."
c - 1
Al- Arabi 249 (August 1979), pp. 34-40.

Adams, Charles Clarence. Mohammed Abduh, The ReformeE.

The Moslem World, Vol. 19 (1929), pp. 264-273.

;
Akhtar, Waheed. Suf! Approach to the ,Problem of Alienation.

Islam and the Modern Age, Vol. 6~ (Feb. 1975),

pp. 65-87.
c - c - -
Al- Aqqad, Abbas Ma~mud. AI-Ruhaniyyah bayn al-Anbiya'

'l-Thalathah. A~-Risalah, Vol. 12, No. 550 (Jan.

1944), pp. 43-55.

Arnaldez, R. Ibn Hazm. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. .

>

-
New Edition, Vol. 3, Leiden: E.J. Brill,

(1971) .

.
AI-~ahI, 'Muhammad. AI-Din wa '~-Falsafah. Al-Risa1ah,

Vol. 9, No. 406 (1941), pp. 530-533.

-
cAl-Jami c ah wa '1- c Aqidah.
- Al-Azhar, Vol. 10

(1939), pp. 220-222.

1
cLi-Madha Tafalsafa 'l-Insan. Al-Risalah, Vol. 13,

No. 616 Cl. 945), pp. 410-412.

Busoo1, Assad N.

Thought.
.,
The Development of Taha Husayn's Islamic

The Muslim World, Vol. 68 (Jan. 1978),

pp. 259-284.
Cook, M.A. cThe Origin of Ka1am. SOA~ Vol. 42 (1980),

pp. 32-43.
(
,
 135

\
Fakhry, Maj id. The b~assical Islamic Arguments 'for. the
( Existence of God. The Muslim World, Vol. 47
, "

(April 1957), pp. 133-145.

Fariq, K.A. Evolution of Law in Islam. Igbal, Vol. 6

(July 1957), p'p. 44-67..

Gardet, L. c Ilm al-Kalam.

- The Encyclopaedia'of Islam.

New Edition, Leiden: E.J{. Brill, 1971.

Ghallab, Muhammad. Al-Islam wa Il-Falsafah. Al-Azhar,

Vol. 6 (1935), pp. 461-468, 615-630, 703-711.

,.
Goldzihe~Th~ Influence of Buddhism Upon Islam.

The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vl. 36

(1904), pp. 125-141.

1 C .,. _ ~

.
Hasan Ma sumi, M.S. ~bn Bajjah on tQe
\
Rumari Intellect.

Islamic Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1965), pp. 121-136.

Hash1m, Yahya.
,
.
Hukm a1-Tasa'ul fi Masali! al-CAqidah.
,
Al-Azhar, Vol. 48 (1976), pp. 441-444.

Al-Azhar wa Il-Mushki1at a1-Islamiyyah al-Rahinah:

Al-Azhar, Vol. 48 (197.6), pp. 834-843.

,
clnhiyar al-Bina' al-CAqli li c rlm a1-Kalam.

.-
Al-Azhar, Vol. 49 (1977), pp. 1316-1328.

Al-Ittijah al-CAmaI! fI DaCwat al-Ras1.

\ ,
-Al-
Azhar, Vol. 48 '1976), pp. 296-304.

Horten, Max. The System of Islamic Phi,losophy in Ge'neral.

IslamicStudies, Vol. 41 (1973), pp. 1-36.

Theologians in Islam. Islamic >tudies, Vol. 12

<
\
(1973), pp.' 81-101.

1 The System of Islamic Phiiosop~ in Detail.

! IslQmic Studies, Vol. 12 (1973), pp. 193-211, 231-260.
t.
r
.,1'
J
 136,

Jamil, K.M. The Nature of Intellect in the Thirteenth-

Century Sufism. The Pakistan Philosophical Journal,

Vol. 4, No. 3 (Jan. 1961), pp. 59-64.

Khallaf, c Abd al-Muncim Muhammad. A11a~ wa 'l-Insan wa

.
'l-Hayat. Al-Risalah, Vol. 12, No. 550 (Jan. 1944),

pp. 60-62.

Al-CAql al-Mu'min aw al-Din min Tariq ~l-Fikr.~

Al-Risa1ah, Vol. 13, No, 650 (Dec. 1945), pp. 1367-

1370.

B~yn al-Sufiyyah al-Balha' wa 'l-Maddiyyah

al-Samma'. Al-Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 620 (May 1945),

pp. 549-552.

I c jaz
- -
al-Qur'an w~
- -
'l-Maqayis a1-Bashariyyah.

Al-Risa1ah, Vol. 13, No. 632 (August 1945), pp.

..
862-863.
_ _ _ _o. AI-Mustaqarr al-CAq1I li-CAqIdat al-Tawhld.

AI-Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 634 (August 1945), pp. 918-

921.

AI-TaswIr al-Fannl fI 11-Qur'an li-Mu'al1ifihI

al-Ust~dh Sayyid Qutb. AI-Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 617

j
(April 1945), pp. 452-455.

Khan, clrfan Ahmad. On Problems of Islamic Research in

11
)
.f
1
Philosophy. Islarnic Thought, Vol. 4 (1957),~ 1
~

pp. 40-46.
.
Islamic Method. Islamic Thoug~t, Vol. 6

(1961), pp.' 1-13.

(

..
 137

~l-Khatib, Muhibb al-DIn: Manhaj al~Madrasah al-lslamiyyah

, 0 itP
al-Ila. Al-Azhar, Vol. 51 (Bec. 1978), pp. 96-
106:
Khoury, N.A. and Baaklini, A.l. Muhammad cAbd~h.~
"
The Muslim'World, Vol. 69 (Jan. 1979), pp. 42-52. .,.
Laoust, H. Ibn Taymiyyah. The Encyc~opaedia of Islam,
New Edition, Vol. 3. Leiden: E.J. Brill, (1971).
Macdonald, D.B . The Doctrine of Revelation in Islam.
The Moslem World, Vol. 7 (1917)," pp. 112-117.
Ma~d, c Abd a1-HalIm. Mawqif al-Islam min a1-Falsafah.
Al-Azhar, Vol. 50 (Jan.-March 1978), pp. 1-11,
293-310.
Mawqif al-Islam min a1-Fann wa Il-cl1m wa 11-
~ eTh
Falsafah. Al-Azhar, Vol. 48 (Dec. 1976),pp. 1557-
1567; its continuation Vol. 49 (July 1977), pp. 805-
809.
cAI-Fiqh al':::' IslamI . Al-Azhar, Vol. .~8 (Nov. 1976),
pp. 1321-13'31.
cAl-Islam wa TanzIm al-Mujtama c . Al-Azhar, Vol.
lI;' .

48 (April 1976), pp. 403-413.

Min al-Imam al-Akbar ila Ralrsi Majlis al-Shacb
:;

wa 'I-Wu.zara'. Al-Azhar, Vol. 4, (August 1976),.' . iJ

1
pp. 733 -7 3 5
1
(~.
---""-t. Wa-Innahu la-Kitabun cAzIz. Al-Azhar, Vol. 48 .. )

(Sept. 1976) 1 pp. 897-903. . ,

cAl-ShauIcah al-Islamiyyah fI Maj lis a1-Sh'a cb '.
'.
1
A1:-Azhar, Vol. ,48 : (Feb: 1976), pp. -128-138.
 138

C - C
Makdisi, G. Ash ari and the Ash arites in Islamic Re1igious
( History. Studia Islamica, Vol. 17 (1962), pp.

37-80;'.18(1963), pp. 19-39.

Mandur, Muhammad. Al-CAqliyyah al-Mi~riyyah. Al-Risalah,

Vol. 12, No. 592 (Nov. 1944), pp. 981-983.

Misr al-Islamiyyah. Al-Risalah, Vol. 12, No. 570

(June 1944), pp. 466-467.

Qadat al~Fikr. Al-Risalah, Vol. 12, No. 594

(Nov. 1944), pp. 1021-1023.

cShacb Misr. Al-Risalah, Vol. 12, No. 596

(Dec. 1944), pp. 1061-1063.

Al-Ma~aghi, M.M. A Defence of Reforms in al-Azhar

The Moslem World, VOl./19 (1929) , pp. 183-195.

Margoliouth, o.s. Ideas and Ideals of Mo?ern Islam.

The Moslem World, Vol. 20 (1930), pp." 235-250.

Meric Pessagno, ,J. Intellect and Religious Assent.

'" ,
The Muslim World! Vol. 69 (19791, pp.. 18-27.
/1

Mia, Abdul Jalrl. The Concept of TauhId or Unit y.

)
Studies in Islam, Vol. 16, No. 2 (April 1979), !

.
pp. 64-67-.
f

MiftaI;, cAbd Rabbih. Al-Islam wa 'l-fl!Aql. Al,-Azhar,

Vol. 6 (1935), pp. 64-67. 1

"
Moinul Haq, S. ~The Origin and Growth of Sufism.

Journal of the pakistani Historical Society,

Vol. 21, No. 2 (April 1973), pp. 79-108.

1
, 'C MuIJarak, Zakl.
-
Al-Islam bayn al- c Aql wa 'l-Ruh.
-
. Al-
t "
Risalah, Vol. 12, No. ~50 (Jan.'1944), pp. 67-68

.
\--~~-"_"""'_"'''_ ~_._"'~~""'" __ b _ _ ,_"
 139

Musa, Muhammad Yusuf. cE}awl: al-Din wa, 1 l-Falsafah. )

.(~ - .
<,Al-Risalah, Vo1. 9,'No.o407 (1941), p. 573.

.
Nasif, Muhammad. .
al-Hurriyyah al-CIlmiyyah fI Il-Islam.

Al-Azhar, Vol. la (1939), pp. 344-351.

Nicholson, R.A. cA Historical Enquiry Concerning the Origin

and Development of Sufism. ~he Journal of the

1
Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 38 (1906), pp. 303-

348.

a1-Nowaihi, M. Problems of Modernizatlon in Islam.

.
The Muslim World, Vol. 65. No. 3 (July 1975),

.pp. 174-185.

Qu~b, Sayyid. .
Mabahith c an a1-Taswir-al-Fanni
, .
fI 'l-Qur'an.
. -
-
AI-Risalah, '"
Vol. 13, No. 620 (May 1945), pp. 527-529.

Al-Mantiq a1-WijdanI wa- 'l-cAqIdah. Al-Risa1ah,

,
Vol. 13, No. 629 (1945), pp. 778-781. ",

-
A1-Tanasuq
- -
al-Fanni fi
-
Ta~wir
,-,
al-Qur an. -.
<,1
AI-Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 611 (March 1945), pp. 278-

281.

!l-TaswIr al-Fanni wa '1-9 Aq Idah fi 'I-Qur ' an.

Al~Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 645 (Nov. 1945), pp.

1225-1227~

A1~TaswIr al-FannI fI 'l-Qur'an. AI-Risalah,

Vol. 13, No. 601 (Jan. 1945), pp. 43-45.

Rahbar, Daud. Relation of Mus1irn Th~9logy to,the Qurlan.

The Mus1im World, Vol. 51 (Jan. 1961), pp. 44-49.

Rida, Muhammad RashId.

.. ~,4
AI-Murshidn wa 'l-Murabbun aw al-

Mutasawwifah wa 'l-Sufiyyn. Al-Manar, Vol. 6

(1897/8), pp. 722-730.

 140

...,
Sabri, Muhammad. CIlalGal-Mujtamac al-Misri,
. AI-Risalah,
Vol. 13, No. 605 (Feb. 1945), p. 124.

Al~SaghIr, c Abd al-Majld.

. Raf c al-Tanaqud:
-
. al-Jadal

al-SufI wa Qtmat al-cAlam al~HissI. Etudes

.

Philosophiques et Littraires, Vol. 3 (1978),
! /
( pp. 105-115.
1
1
Salim, Ahmad Musa. AI-Nazar al-CAqlI baytt al-Islam wa,

Khus~ih. Al-Azhar, Vol ~ 45' (1973/4), pp. 701-

708.
,
Schuon, Frithjof. \Dilemmas of Theological Speculation With

Special Reference to Moslem Scholasticism. The

Islamic Quarterly, Vol. 17 (1973), pp. 36-63.

If
Shalabi,- C -
Abd al-Jalil. -c iyah al-Islami
Muhimmat ?l-Da - - wa

Takwinuh al- Ilmi.

- 0 c - Al-Azhar, Vol. 49 (1977),

pp. 254-259.

'Spect~tor.o Religious Fredom in Egypt. The Moslem World,

Vol. 20 (1930), pp. 344-351.

al-Tantawi, cAlI., c - c c-
Al-.~qidah bayn a1- Ag1 wa '1 Atifah.

Al-Risalah"vo1. 13, No. '648 (Dec. 1945), pp. 1313-

1315".

~1-CAq1iyyah al-Misriyy~h. , A1-

'"--

Risalah, Vol. 12, No. 597 (Dec. 1944), p. 2000.

. . , . . Al-CAql fI
Tuqan,' QadrI Hafiz 'l-Qur'an wa 'l-HadIth.

Al~Risalah, vo~~ 13, NQ. 601 (Jan. 1945), pp.

55-56. ,.
WajdI, Muhammad FarId. Athar al~Qur'an' fI TahrIr al-Fikr,
. ,
A1-Azpar, Vol. 8 (193,7), pp. 709-71~.
. . a1-InsanI. >

t_-.,,"~ .,--------,-- "---,~ ..-- -_. _. _.. - _ _ _ _ _._. ____ H

 141

A1-Shubuhat al-CIlmiyyah cala 'l-Adyan.

.
Al-Azhar, Vol. 9 (1938), pp. 505-509.

Watt, W.M. The Origin of the Islarnic Doctrine of Acquisition.

"
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 71 (1943),

pp. 234-247

.Ytseen, M. The Task of a Muslim Scholar. Is1amic Thought,

Vol. 5 (1958), pp. 29-31.

Zainul Abedin, Syed. Prob1erns of Is1affi'ic Research in

Philosophy. "\'lslarnic Thought, Vol. 4 (1957), pp.

, 1-5.

.....

'.

---- ~-~'"---- - -" --- ' - " ----_. -~---_._---