The Thought of Natural Causality in Muʽtazilite Kalām (PhD. Dissertation)
Creators
- 1. Necmettin Erbakan University, Ahmet Keleşoğlu Faculty of Theology, Department of Kalām, Konya
Description
Causality is one of the concepts that Muslim theologians (mutakallimūn) use while explaining both interactions between natural beings and the occurrence of human acts and the relationship between God and the universe. The investigations of causality begining in the field of human acts during the constitution of Kalām continued through the results of these acts in nature and then has evolved into causality in divine acts in the context of the wisdom and purpose of creation. These discussions have been taken a different dimension along with the Kalām-philosophy interaction, especially after the theories such as atomism and naturalism have been emerged, it has been placed within a system framework. Therefore, without grasping subject of causality, it is impossible to understand the thoughts of mutakallimūn about relations between God and universe and human and to determine the structure, role and limits of these three beings.
The concern of proving the omnipotence of God and justification of miracles has caused the early mutakallimūn either to reject the principle of causality completely or to handle it in a way that is to allow God's intervention and miracles. Afterwards, the doctrine of atomism interpreted in accordance with Islamic principles has included in the Kalām and it is accepted that the universe has an impermanent structure consisting of substance and accidents, and nature maintains to functioning via God’s continuous creation of accidents on the substance at any moment. Nevertheless, some Muʽtazilī theologians have not seen an obstacle to the approval of nature and causality to accept the existence of an omnipotent creator.
In this study, the theory of nature (ṭabʽ), which is one of two approaches that emerged in the early periods of Kalām as part of a conception of the universe and its consequences related to causality has been tackled. The theory of nature has emerged in the second century of Hijra as an alternative theory to atomism and has survived for nearly two centuries. Muʽtazilī scholars who adopted this theory such as Muʻammar b. ʽAbbād al-Sulamī (d. 215/830), Abū Isḥāq al-Naẓẓām (d. 231/845), Abū ʽUthmān al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869) and Abū al-Qāsim al-Kaʽbī (d. 319/931) have defended innate and permanent nature of beings and the causality and continuity based on it in the universe. However, this theory has weakened and gone out of existence with the effect of criticisms directed by atomistic mutakallimūn to the theory and its defenders.
The study consists of an introduction and two chapters. In the introduction, firstly, a conceptual framework related to the study is presented and information is given about the problem, method, basic sources and terminology of the study. Then, a theoretical basis for concepts of causality and the classification of causes is established; thereafter the concepts of causality in the history of thought and the contexts in which the problem of causality are discussed has been put forward on the basis of the philosophical and theological traditions. In the first chapter, the concepts that form the basis of natural causality are given; in this context, the concepts related with the structure of universe such as nature, essence, accident, body and void; the theories related functioning of nature such as maʻnā, ṭabʽ/ṭabīʽa, kumūn-ẓuhūr, iʻtimād, fanā-bakā and tawlīd/tawallud are examined. In the second chapter, firstly the philosophical roots of the theory of nature have been researched, and then the idea of natural causality based on this theory and how the cause-effect relations are explained in the theories of iʻtimād-tawlīd and ‘ādah-iqtirān are discussed. Afterwards, the results of the thought of natural causality on proofs of God, divine acts and its relationship with nature, laws of nature, miracles and continuous creation have been discussed by having regard to the criticisms directed against this idea.
The first thing to consider about the issue of naturalism is that there are different naturalist theories throughout the history of thought. At this point, there are important differences between Muslim theologians' naturalist theories and atheist-deist naturalist approaches, as there are differences among themselves. Naturalist theologians who agree that there is a constant and permanent nature in beings and causality and continuity based on it in the universe are differentiated in their understanding of cosmology. While al-Muʻammar and al-Kaʽbī accepted a naturalism based on the doctrine of atomism, al-Naẓẓām and al- Jāḥiẓ developed a theory of nature which was based on anti-atomism and the idea of kumūn-ẓuhūr. When we consider that the atomic understanding of al-Muʻammar and al-Kaʽbī is different from each other, it is seen that there are three different theories among Muʻtazilī theologians.
It is possible to see the reflections of differences in nature theory in their understanding of causality. Meantime, atomist naturalists have a more rigid causality concept, anti-atomist naturalists have adopted a moderate theory of causality that allows for divine intervention and miracles. Nevertheless, all naturalist theologians have received intense criticisms both from their own sect and from dissident sects. Some of these criticisms are that the acceptance of nature and the principle of causality will break down the evidence of hudūth, limit the divine acts, make the beings independent from God and make miracles impossible. On the other hand, opponents of natural causality can be evaluated in two categories. Although the Basran branch of Mu‘tazilite rejects naturalism but adopts an understanding based on the theories of tawlīd, iʽtimād and ‘ādah, which includes necessity in some subjects and contingency in some subjects. On the other hand, the early Ashʽarī’s have tended to explain all relations between beings with God’s habit and completely reject the principle of causality as a result of their atomic interpretations.
When we look at the criticisms directed to natural causality, al-Muʻammar and al-Kaʻbī’s defence of a relatively strict concept of causality and the use of expressions restricting the activity of God on the beings make it difficult to eliminate these criticisms. The fact that lack of primary sources of their understanding of nature and causality reinforces this situation. Nevertheless, we believe that it is not right to consider equal the naturalist theologians with atheist and deist naturalist approaches. Yet all naturalist theologians believe that natures and causal laws can only affect the accidents and that the creation of a new object and substance is only within the power of God; they have also acknowledged that God is the indirect agent of all the acts they create, as he is the creator of objects and substances. However, while al- Naẓẓām and al-Jāḥiẓ leave a wider area for divine activity and miracles, stating that God can interfere with these natures and laws when God wishes and that he can act on the contrary; al-Muʻammar and al-Kaʽbī have argued that God can act within the framework of the laws and natures created by God, and accordingly miracles can only occur under these laws.
The restrictive statements that divine acts will occur within the framework of the principle of causality do not mean that naturalist Muslim theologians think that power of God is limited or beings dominate over God. On the contrary, they have stated that God can create beings without these natures if God wishes. They are based on the fact that God created beings in this way and determine the laws of nature in this manner. In other words, it is God's own will that restricts the divine acts. Therefore, there is no damnification to omnipotence of God. On the other side, the fact that beings act according to the principle of nature and causality does not mean that they can exist in a way that is wholly independent from God. Because it is not coherent to think that an entity that needs others to exist may have complete independence to survive.
Notes
Files
6_ULUM_ISSN 2645-8132_Vol_2_Issue_2_December_2019_Dissertations_pages_265_270_by_Ahmet_Mekin_Kandemir.pdf
Files
(109.7 kB)
Name | Size | Download all |
---|---|---|
md5:ddbaf67b79e6fae8a53aa188f54ba981
|
109.7 kB | Preview Download |