FROM THEOLOGICAL to ANTHROPOLOGICAL an EXAMINATION of the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ‘AQL (INTELLECT) and NAQL (“TRANSFER”/REVELATION) in ISLAM Ali Mabrouk
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FROM THEOLOGICAL TO ANTHROPOLOGICAL AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ‘AQL (INTELLECT) AND NAQL (“TRANSFER”/REVELATION) IN ISLAM Ali Mabrouk ike other cultures that have been inspired by a revealed Book, Islam has found itself having to Ltackle the problem of the relationship between naql (revelation) and ‘aql (the intellect). There are several ways of dealing with this relationship. Sometimes it involves mutually incompatible interpretations which reflect the differences of opinion that exist within the culture that harbours them, demonstrating that the essential relationship between those interpretations is one of conflict, in which each tries to oust the other and occupy centre stage. However, if one interpretation manages to come out on top, this does not mean that it is based on a more correct understanding or that it is closer to the truth, but rather that it is more in line with the views of the ruling authority – i.e. those who hold the reins of power. That is to say, if it happens that an interpretation of the ‘aql- naql relationship becomes so widely accepted that all the alternative interpretations are seen as heresies and Scholar and academic from Egypt. 121 FROM THEOLOGICAL TO ANTHROPOLOGICAL totally unworthy of consideration, the fact that it has prevailed should not be understood to mean that it –and it alone – represents the “true” position of Islam; instead, it owes its success to the fact that its position is identical to that of the ruling authority. Or to put it another way, it has not “won out” because it is “true”, but because it is “stronger”. Paradoxically, this perception of the ‘aql-naql relationship in Islam shows how far removed that relationship is from what it should be when one considers the role of revelation in history. And of course anything that is at odds with revelation (when seen holistically) cannot be regarded as compatible with Islam – Islam being one of the channels through which Divine Revelation is transmitted. It is almost universally agreed that the Book of Revelation (i.e. the Holy Qur’an) is the focal point of Islam, to a point where some people maintain that every other aspect of Islamic culture and civilization is nothing more than a by-product of that Book’s contents. The reality is that the contents of that Book are not self-revelatory, but reveal themselves through an interactive relationship between the Book and the ‘aql – a fact that illustrates the crucial role played by the ‘aql in enriching the naql (i.e. the Book) through its ability to unlock the code to explaining its underlying interpretations and meanings in the light of the changing realities of the world around us (to the point where the ‘aql can be seen as decisive in enabling revelation to function as an effective vehicle). Hence ‘aql actually has a pivotal function that goes beyond merely proving the truth of revelation (although it has been limited to this role by the prevailing Islamic discourse, which asserts that ‘aql must be allowed to play no further part other than that)1 to providing ta’wil (interpretation) establishing 1 “Here the speaker’s words are cut off and the ‘aql’s function comes to an end. In reality the ‘aql demonstrates the truthfulness of the Prophet.. Then it becomes detached and concedes that it is taken from the Prophet”. See Al Ghazali. Al Mustasfa fi ‘Ilmi’l Usul, edited by Muhammad Abdussalam Abdul Shafi (Darul Kutubi’l ‘Ilmiyyah), Beirut, 1st impression 1993, P. 6. Although it appears that al Ghazali ascribes this “detachment” to the ‘aql and is content to take from the Prophet, while limiting himself to “what he says about Allah and the Last Day which the ‘aql cannot know independently or judge its impossibility”, it would also seem that “that which the ‘aql cannot know independently” (according to the Ash’arite discourse which forms the framework of al Ghazali’s thought) is not limited to statements about Allah and the Last Day. Rather, it goes = 122 FROM THEOLOGICAL TO ANTHROPOLOGICAL the applicability of revelation throughout history, thereby demonstrating that ‘aql’s function is not time-restricted with regard to revelation, but that it acts as a constant creative and effective partner to revelation throughout all time. ‘Aql has a crucial function far greater that its role of providing contemporary explanations of the meanings of scriptures that were revealed at certain specific moments in history (the Qur’an or the Torah, for example). It is also relevant to revelation as a whole. An analysis of the concept of revelation developing towards being a “universal, all-embracing phenomenon” - in which all its different stages are fused into one - will show that the notion evolved in parallel with the view of the development of ‘aql, since almost every stage of revelation that has taken place reflects the nature of the human intellect that accompanied it. Hence being able to distinguish – where revelation is concerned - between sensory or mythical images and images that transcend the sensory and mythical has only been made possible by the fact that human awareness has developed to a point whereby the intellect has been able to see beyond the sensory to the transcendental. The decisive factor here is that revelation over the course of history has only been able to evolve thanks to the role of ‘aql. = beyond the “unseen and next-worldly” and also covers purely worldly matters. This is confirmed by a statement of al Baqilani, one of the early founders of the Ash’arite discourse, who says that people “came into the world all of a sudden and unprepared and there was nothing in their ‘aql to enable them to distinguish between those foods that were medicinally useful and those that were deadly poisons. Nor was there anything in what they saw, nor in the rest of their senses, to provide them with evidence so that they could know what they needed to know in this respect. If they were to say: ‘People knew this in ancient times and discovered it by testing it on their bodies and the bodies of other human beings, and on the bodies of animals such as dogs, wolves, beasts of burden, birds and other creatures,’ one could reply: ‘This comes from Allah, Glory be to Him, in His wisdom, because He can inform humans and animals about what is poisonous so that they know what is good for their bodies and the medicines that cure their ailments, thereby enabling them to avoid harming themselves and others (as well as animals) and from testing those substances for themselves. ….Knowledge about such weighty matters is beyond the reach of the ‘aql and experiment. Knowledge of the fundamentals of medicine comes from the Messengers (peace be upon them)…and most of the Nation is of this view”. See Al Baqilani: Kitab al Tamhid, published by the Jesuit Father Richard Joseph Macarthy (Al Maktaba al Sharqiyyah), Beirut, 1957, Pp. 127-128. The expression “and most of the Nation is of this view” – to quote al Baqilani – is used to reinforce the idea that the ‘aql is subject to naql in this world as well as the next. This further limits the ‘aql’s scope for independence. 123 FROM THEOLOGICAL TO ANTHROPOLOGICAL If the ‘aql-naql relationship in Islam has tended to classify ‘aql as being subordinate to naql, this conflicts with the position implicit in revelation itself and leads one to conclude that its supposedly subordinate role in that relationship is incompatible with Islam. A serious analysis will indeed confirm this and lead us to recognise that we need to examine how this view of the relationship came about in the culture that gave birth to it, since a culture’s relevance and impact is determined by the status it gives to the ‘aql which developed within it. If ‘aql – any ‘aql – is merely a phenomenon that is produced by a culture – any culture – and cannot be considered in isolation from it, then anything that is said about the role of the intellect - or ‘aql - in Islam can only be taken in the context of the culture that was developed by it1. This means, of course, that the culture in which an Islam-oriented ‘aql occurs can only be an “Islamic culture”. Here it is vital to distinguish between “Islamic culture” and the “dominant culture in Islam”. If “Islamic culture” is considered within the context of a broad field of cultures - each with its own vision of the world but accepting of the other’s right to exist and express itself freely and showing itself prepared to interact with it – then “dominant culture in Islam” is precisely its opposite. By this I mean that it is one of those cultures has taken it upon itself to narrow the field to the point where it becomes the only culture, while suppressing all others and excluding them from the Islamic Faith and the Islamic Nation2. 1 Here one needs to distinguish between two different levels of culture, each of which epitomises the role of ‘aql in Islam in its own way. There is culture in the broad anthropological sense which applies to the pre-Islamic period and left its inevitable mark upon the ‘aql, and there is the written culture of Islam which represents an ‘aql system that, while it has older anthropological roots, became a crucible for other forms of ‘aql (owing to the influences of other civilizations), none of which was able to challenge the almost absolute authority of the - anthropologically – deep-rooted ‘aql. 2 This only applies to the Ash’arite system which still operates to this day and in which there is a correspondence between al taqdis wa’l tadnis (sanctification and charging with desecration), and domination and exclusion.