/

c,
1
1
,
l
ci
o
/
CABD AL-HALIM MAHMUOiS CRITIQUE OF REASON
.
Ilj ACQUIRING THE .KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
by
1
. ,.
!
CABD AL-WAHIO AFOLABI' AHMAD AL-RUFAc
)
.'
, .
, '.
A Thesis c
/
----
,/
Presented to the Faculty pf Graduate Studies
and McGill University, Montreal,
in partial fulfillrnent of the require-
ments for the degree of
- Master of Arts
tnstitute of Islamic Studies
.
McGill University
Montreal

.'
....
J
#
M a b m ~ d s Cri tique of Reason
1
\
c.
, '
c
.)
1
/
1
)
ABSTRACT
Author
Title of
CAbd al-Wahid\ Afolabi Ahmad al-Rufcr
cAbd al-HalIm Mahmd's" Critique of'Reason
in Acquiring the Knowledge of God
")
Departmel'}t Islamic 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 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.
1
Since the knowledge of God constitutes thfe central
aspect of the Islamic faith or metaphyslcal studies, the
author of this thesis considers arguments to be
li
worthy of study.w Be sides the importance of this issue, the
iv
;
\
l
l
l'
(
..
,)
'<
1
c
,
autnor that senses; reason, and religious texts
1
Icannot be ignored in the process of acquiring the
of God .
1
/
)
..
o
1
,
o .
o
?

v
. -
,
J
.. --"'r _ - , -----.. ___ ....... n _ __.. .. _ ... _ --:--f
1
"-

1
1
,1
III
1
'"

'\
\
.'

1
4
'(1
/
,
RESUME
\ .
. \
"
.of
,
\
"
Auteur CAbd al-Wahid Afolabi Ahmad al-RfacI
,
Titre de la 'La Critique par c Abd
....
de la Raison Comme Moyen d'Acqurir la
..
Connaissance de Dieu.
Dpartement
, <
Etudes Islamiques, Universit McG,il}.,
Montral.
Diplme Maitrise s arts.
Cette thse tente d'analyser la critique par
c' 0
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
c'
la connaissance immdiate de Dieu.
Partant de ce que la de constitue
vi
(
/
....
f
,1
"
"
/
1
/
l'aspect fondamental de la foi Islamique comme des tudes
>
de mtaphysique, l'auteur de estime que les
arguments de Mahmd doivent faire l'objet, d'une tude.
,.
Par ailleurs, le rle des sens, de la des textes
, J ,
religieux dans de la connaissance de Dieu
1
ne peut pas tre ,neglig.
r
/'
!
1
/
./
i
1
1
.. /
1
vii.
If
. -
)
,
/
1
1
f
f 4
\ u
- _ .. - ... "",. .... ...-...-_-A ...
(
)
(
-;
/
J
_1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ix
INTR0DUCTION ................................. et
1
CHAPTER
I.. C ABD AL-HALIM MAHMUD: HIS LIFE AND HIS THOUGHT
l
e . - -
Abd a1-Ha1im Mahmud's Biography .........
. -
The Nature of Know1edge And Its Method ...... .
,
The Know1edge of God ........................ .
Critiejsm of Modernism ............. .
1
. ;..
Cane USlon ................... ......
Notes
6
10
16
25
28
II. FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHY AND CILM 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 On1y .......... 91
"
h d
. f f'i \, 94
T e Mo ern Vlew 0 Su ........... \ ....... ' ..
Study of the SfI System ....... 97
Notes
105
CONCLUSION
113
Notes ....................................... 118
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
;lo.viii
J
).
(
..

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
l am deeply indebted te my parents and - a- noble man
called SacId Folarni Arojojoye who granted me an
award of more than $30,000.00, may Allah reward them aIl
0
indefnitely. Similarly, my profound thanks go to the
Institute of Islamic Studies, for the
,
fellowships it awarded me. 1 also express my gratitude
te Alhaji c Abd al-cAzIz ef Yoruba
land, who gave me when 'le met last year. l
cannot forget Alhaji Amusa O. Lawal Are, the Manager of
the United Bank Africa Limited, Idumagbo, Lagos who
\
1
took up responsibility of remitting aIl the 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-
operation.
C -e
l must nat ferget to thank Prafessor Wadi Z.
Haddad under 'Ilhose instruction l chose the tapie of this
f
thesis. Also, l am very grateful Professor Donald P.
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
J
C'
. 1
,)
(
"
1
c
1
/
/
. 1
7
. / .'
1
the abstrct of this thesis into French. The staff of

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
suggestions made by sorne friends and such as
cAbd al-KarIm Douglas Crow, Ridwan A. Ysuf, lysa Ade
Bello of the University of Toronto, c Abd al-Haqq,4Mrs .
Ann Barbezat, Msa A;eleke Ahmad and others. Finally, ,I
thnk my mother, brothers and sisters, wives and children
v
who tolerated rny absence during the period of this program .
.
May Allah bless thern aIl and have mercy on my father.
Amen .
. \
1
;
x
1
, "
-1
... __ .-
<'
.
c
.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
must be determined by the type of knowledge that one seeks.
With this in his general notion ,of knowledge is
ana1yzed 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 l and II. Th short-
comings of his argument in Chapter II narrated in
1:"
III by conceding the fact that neither the useful-
ness nor the fal1ibili ty of is deniable."
1
-<-
\
-.
.(
'"
o
o
2
Mahmud's view that Sui! ecstasy should replace rationality
.
a
has been scrutinized in the chp.pter by contrasting his _
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 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,
cause a means of attaining righteousness
. and is Inseparable from Islam. 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. 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
CAbd al-HalIm MaI;md' s Biography
As there is yet no detai1ed biography wri tten by
any scho1ar on Dr. CAbd al-HalIm Mahmd, the account of
1
his 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
before its author's death.
2
Though most1y characterized by a. certain
subjectivity, they do consist of first-hand information which
)
"
may be useful if proper caution taRen in employing them.
Twelve articles were published about this in
,
Majallat al Azhar in 1978 the y hardly add of

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 Shaykh cAbduh
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 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
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 of Seeondary School in Cairo, he realized that
.
his standard was ab9ve that of the syllabus, he
withdrew upon eornpletion of that and enrolled as a
private student
6
for the final examination of' the Secondary
, 1).. .... ' C:I
School Cert"ifieate. Though he railed in the Arabie grarnmar
and philology he was make them up in
his second attempt and obtained his certificate in 1928.
7
\
(
..
5
The following year, cAgd al-HalIm started his degree
.
.,
program in al-Azhar. He cornpleted it in 1932 and was awarded
/ the Certificate. Upon hiS graduation frorn
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
Moraliste.
8
, '1
,
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 (
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-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 and he successfully held it until
his death in 1978.
9
As for his 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,
(
. .
I,J
6
/
by Andr Maurois (Paris, 1931),10 le 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
Allah by (Oairo, 1958), Al-jUngidh min
al by al-Ghazza11 (Cairo, 1952) and others.
1
J
wever,
,
his main contribution2 -may be classified in three c egorie!3:
(a) his on' Islamic thought such}as al-TawJ;Id
al-Khalis aw al-Islam wa "l-cAg1 (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
Abu 'l-Hasan al-ShadhilI (Cairo, 1967), Ohu
. --
'l-Nun a1-MisrI (Cairo, 1973) and others;
(e) his reaetion to modernism in Egypt, contained
one major work entit1ed Manhaj al-Islah al-IslamI

fI 'l-Mujtama
C
(Cairo, 1972), and in his articles
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);' wa Tanzim
c
al-Mujtarna , 48 (April, 1976).
cABD AL-HALIM MAHMO'S THOUGHT
?
The Nature of Knowledge and its Method
Mahrnd's discussion of the nature of know1edge is very
)
1
" l
(
7
acute but relatively inadequate because he exc1udes God' s
knowledge
12
which has usually been included in such discussion,
by preceding Muslim theological thinkers.
13
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
method, his major topic.
14
He employs the (knowledge)
in his discussion of the knowledge of both the physical and
,
the metaphysical worlds, proclaiming that his usage of this
15
term differs from that of the Europeans. . However, he
1
claims that the Islamic concept 'of includes the,
aforesaid divisions of the knowable abject, and pe emphasizes
its coherence by citing Andr Cresson's classification of
philosophy into theory and
/ As for the methods of be lists
three different ones which have original-ly cited by
al-KindI.
18
He specifies the senses for physics, the intellect
for arts, and revelation for metaphysics.' He links the
intellect with senses and he subjects its functiqn ta
sensation by which he demarcates the power of intellectual
1 .
.
perception. 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 legislation, and the knowledge of GOd,l9
none of which, he believes, can be studied To
him, rationalism the study of'ethics and legislation is
contrary ta the subrnission required of a Muslim.
21
He clairns
that the supremacy of reason over revelation changes
..
----.
(
)
/
8
'f
from being an aid of revelation to a primary rnethod
of acquiring metaphysical knowledge. Besides this, he
someoexamples to prove the 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 practice. He
supports this statement by the failure of Plato,22
Manes, and others to put their metaphysical theorl1es into
practice.
23
He concludes that the only :impeccable metho 0
of 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
to his view, recommend the use of reason.
25
The Prophet's
1 approval ofa 'independent [ijtihid],26 the exercise
of which has generated the Islamic schools of will also
need be reconciled with Mahmq's denial of rationality in
thi d l
. l t' 2 7
e cs an egls a lon. With regard to Qur'anic verses on
the use of reason, he interprets any word that denotes
, ." t l t' '[ . Ct . b- ] 2
8
H
reasonlng as mere con emp a lng 1 1 ar . 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
instance, it excludes the
aspect of the;intellectual process approved by
the
the
when an iS,not
1
P
' h t' t d' t' 32
op e 1C 1
covered by the Qur'an and
'.
As a result of "Mahrnud, deni'es aIl
jurisprudential 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
a piece of land to those whose hearts were to be reconciled.
35
-'
cUmar's action "is obviously contrary to Qur'anic instruction,
and adopts the deduction of the jurists classifying
"',
this action as a termination of the benefit [irtifa
c

the constituent basis of the 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 instruction or not,
, 38
cUmar's practice in no way supports view.
In to this, 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
main source of al+ the above-mentioned principles.
39
However,
the affirmation of these principles an indirect,
agreement with the flexibility of Qur'anic to
(,
: ,


..
10
J
achieve an inevitab1e reconci1iation through which the u1timate
religious aim is reaGhed.
1
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, 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 this clafm.
40
The Knowledge of God
1
Mahmud conslders the suft way as the only appropriate
.
method for acquiring the knowledge of GOd.
41
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 the ideal method of
"
acquiring the knowledge, he contradicts 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
of God. 44 He sometimes adroits that reason can lead to the
c-
. 45
knowledge of God, though he identifies, it as a risky
He elaborates the risk contained in the use of this method
as a wrong conclusion that awaits its function and he justifies
, .
,1
l
-.
( .
'(
..

Il
with the following namelYi
(i) That reason is intrinsically limited and' rela-
tive in'its function by which aIl rational
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 fIat board of
wood, and the of employing revelation with that of
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 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 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) of the intellect's
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 knowledge to God); aIl
of which are as far as the direct
.. knowledge of God is concerned.
However, MahmGd says process of God /
is in two stages: the for discovering )
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,
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 rational Gr
revelational. Bes.ides, the carporeal form of man entails
,
of sensation from the initial process of human
knowing. With the combinat ion of-soul and body, man is
capable of his existence, perceiving tbe being
of other and discovering the logical necessity of
a Creating Power for aIl the beings. This analysis
disproves Mahmd's negative concept above, and it also suggests
..
-- - ......

,
1
(
.
'"
(
..
, ,
13
strongly the of corporeal form for
Descartes' motto or principle,
"
52
'cogito ergo Sum'
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 with proof on that the world'does not exist
by rnere chance but as a creation of GOd.,53 This staternent,
1
though with the rnaintained in orthodoxe
Islam, makes Mahmud fall in self-contradlction .
. /
Concerning the 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
o
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-
He attributes lack of unanimity on these topics
to the fact that 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.
(
.'
1
1
5
e been provided with,what is enough; 9 and the
bounties of God, not His Essence you perish;60 and
'"
61
Pass them as the y came, that is, affirm the.attributes
,
as tney are stated. He de termines from both the lack of
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 from Islamic
theological studies.
62
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
63
the interpretation of the ambiguous verses can be known;
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
mutashabih to God. But it is known that other Qur'anic verses
ascribe clarity to the revelation;64 therefore,
arises from the combination of two opposites. Though to
,
dismiss 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
, ,
. -----------,-------------
.'
'.
1
/
1
/
..
i
.,
(
r
c.
ancestors regarding this'issue:
, i
soml:! traditions $uQpor-t-
f--:-
view 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-
about the clarity or the arnbiguity of the Qur'anic

.
vers's can -be avoided. 1s it possible to exclude the study of
these metaphysical aspects from Islamic theology? This question
cannot be answered without verifying exactly what has led the
Muslims to hold,rational discussions 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
theology to an'incessant friction between the followers of
Islam and Christianity.68 This is contrary to the opinion
of' Sl:laykh Mustafa CAbd 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
of rationality_ 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
in metaphysics. He adds to this an internaI
factor identified as the mention of God's Essence, His
divine omnipotence and man's free will in both the Qur'an
and the tradition the study of he believes,
, -
-
--------- ----.-..-------------.... .,.-
"
(
16'"
'.
has internallY'led,the Muslims to rationality in metaphysics.
70
al-Nashshar mentions the Islamic
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 the rational discussion of Islmic theology
are still there. Hence, Mahmd' s is not val id. Even
if we presume the validfty of his view, the substitutes he
suggests are inadeqpatJ the knowledge of God which
.
. th' . i f Islam. 72 F th
e on 0 ur ermore, as
c
proselytization cannot be eliininated from the main dut Y of
a 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
in
.. f M . Il t 7
4
Th
l'
0 aJa a e ana, yS1S
. of his thought in this regard' requires a summary of the
response of the Eqyptian Muslirn eli te t'o
when it first
"
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 it 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
as the appropria te method of attainin9 knowledge.
On the other hand,
c
Abduh sees conformity Qur'an
arid modern science. 77 Accord'ingly, the correlation between
Islam and modern civilization and the advocacy of the freedom
"
f th ht t
. t t th . f f h' . t . 18
o oug cons 1 u e e maJor ocus 0
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
76
recounOts the scientific contributions of the Arabs and suggests 4
that this, however, should not be made a for qualifying
sciences with the nationality of any contributor to the
scientific advancement. 80 Regardless of the origin of this
view,81 the scientlfic of the ArabE: are affirmed
82 "
in many contemporary works; therefore, order to avoid
confusion, Mahmud' s suggestion ta leave sciences unqualified
. '
----j_ ... -_. _.. .- ----..
r
__ ""'''''''' -.-J
(
,
,

18
by any ty or race is logical.
V
J
As for the concept of modernism, Mahmd divides Islamie
,civilization into physies and metaphysics. 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 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 or limited nature
6f reason. He also justifies his. view by citing Qur' anic
verses and Prophetie traditions whieh 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
Christian modernization.
90
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
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 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
of substituting for revelation.
92
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
articles on Islamic law that he supports the continuity of
. 1 94
, 1J a ln rs am. 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 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
age.
96
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 'the Egyptian modernists,
-;.
-_ .... "...,. .............. _ ....
t
,
,
,
/
/
/
(
20

the difference lies in how these principles have to be applied
in practice. To the rnodernists, reason is arbitrary
method for the interpretation of the Islamic revelation
by which it will conforrn to the exigencies of aIl ages
97
'/1
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 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
in
Juda1srn, Christianity, and Islam, according to cAbduh's
reforrnist thought, acknowledges the growth and developrnent. of
h l i l being.
100 H M hm d . ly
man as a psyc 0 og ca owever, a u
attacks c Abduh and other modernists
10l
for subsuming
the idea of evolution into the scope 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
i
. . h t i t' f 10
3
c arac er s 0 man. He sees evolut1on only
as a convenient theory used to fallibility of hurnan
r;;
f
t
1
(
(
..
21
,"
i
/
rationality or the defects of the proposed substitutes for
religion: neither of these is applicable to divine religion.
104
He associates the possibility of development in European thought
with its anthropomorphic originj for 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
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
attempts at harmonizing religion with the theories of modern
civilization.
106
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 question, MahmUd
cites sorne Qur'anic verses and Prophetie traditions from
which he draws his negative opinion:
1
(
(
22
And We given thee a rernembrance from Us.
Whosoever turns away from it, upon 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 we
have sent down upon fPee the Book that is
recited by them? Surely in that is a mercy
and a reminder ta a people who believe.
l07
)
Commenting 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 medified, for Ibn KathIr was
net 50 speclflci he the 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 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
religions.
lll
At the time, if we compare the verses
of the Qur'an with one another, it appears that the
inclusion of 'the people of the Book' in ewhosoever turns
c
. --- - -
.
23
away from it is a consequence of the Qur' an' s ascription 0
of distortion to the,previous revelations and the Islamic
1
fI' N' f' l' t 112
calm a re lna 1 y. _ 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].
reported ta have said ta cUmar :
The Prophet is
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
background are different from'those of the East.
114
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 negate or even
relate to the qUjstion of 'modernizing Islam in the light of .
Western 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 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 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
. , f d l' f 117
0 ma ern e. Accordingly, cAbduh defines
theology as 'a science which deals with (the study of)
God's existence, 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
He 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
other than the intellect.
l19
Regardless of its fallibility,

the priority of reason to revelation, 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

'- , __ ,,,... .... 11 r .M'Y' ..... """ :...
..
(
\
25
one believes in,th revelation itself.
120
This view has
l f .'
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 denounces the of reason for its
fallibility and declares revelation as the impeccable
method in the study of metaphysics. Though the Qur'an
is to be applied as the sole tslamic Scripture in
" .
to ethics and legislation, how the process would 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,
.,
disqualifies bath reason and revelation saying that, if
the lat,ter can .lead to any cognizance of God rit is not
direct knowledge. However, he concludes his, argument by
adopting Plotinism as the method capable of leading to the
p.
direct knowledge of Goa and spiritual 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 and unclear sfate-
ments, Mahrnd cannot be regarded a$ representative of the
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
f h
-1 h th t' f 't l 123 If
o P osop y on e gues 0 emo ogy. 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 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
sufficient to condemn reason. Since differences are intrinsic
and originate from the relativity of perception, this
problem is from man in his human condition.
Presuming that revelation i5 employed as a method,
the traditionalists also differ from one another on man y
-
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
7
ification in addition te reason, revelation
,.

- ... -' --_4 ...... '-..; .... u, " ...... _ ..... & .......... ,
,
l
(

27 ",
or both. Sorne uphold the doctrine of [wahdat

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

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 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
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 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 indicates that man needs to re-examine
J
the way he employs reason, not that he should alter revelation
according to his own rationality.
)
(
" p'
c
.l

. ;


, J
\"
\,
NOTES
l
,1 cAbd. al-Wadud ShalabI,> Nubdhah' c an FadIlat
al-Imam al-Akbar 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,

3 Hasan al-TihamI et al., 'Malaff Khass c an
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 can 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.
7 Mahmd, AI-Harnd li Allah: HayatI, pp. 87-89.
28
.
.
"
29
8 Ibid., pp. 125-172 i se also ShalabI;
can FadI1at a1-Akblr, p.' 1463.
-
9
Ibid., p. 14-64.

10 cAbd 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 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 cAbd 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 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 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 cAbd al-Hal!m Mahmd, Al-Islam
. ,
Dar al-Kutub al-HadIthah, 1966 pp. 9-10,
.
cMawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 10.
-----
21 -
Mahmud, Al-Islam, p. 28.
wa '1-cAg1 ,. (Cairo:
22; see also Mahmd,
.
22 The author illustrates the failure which he ascribes
.-
t' Plato' s and Mane' s metaphysics by citing the impossibility
of 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
of its founder.
,?3 c
Abd
al-HalIm Mahmd, CAl-Islam wa TanzIii; a.l-Mujtama
c
,
Maja1lat al-Azhar 48 1976) pp. 405-407.
24' - -
Al-Islam, p. 10.
25 Qurla-n 4.'82,' see 1 '38 29 a so, : .. '
, ,
. '
\
1
,

1
(
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.
28 Ibid., p. 14.
29 Ibid., pp. 14-15; see also Mawqif al-Islam
min al-Falsafah, p. 9_
30 c Abd al-Halrm Mahmud, Manhaj al-Is.lah al-IslamI fI
'l-Mujtama
c
, n.d.) p. 29.'
31 Irving M. Copi, Introduction ta Logic,
Company, '1970) pp. 115-118.
32 Al-AmidI, Al-Ihkam fI Usl a l-Ahkam , Vol. 4, p. 9218.
33 cAbd al-Ha1Im Mahmd, Al-Fiqh al-Islam!,
. .
Majallat al-Azhar 48 (November 1976) p. 1329.
34 Ahmad AmIn, Vol. 3,
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, Vol. 3, p. 173: also
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 Mahmud, Muqaddimah fI Mantig
i
edited together with 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 - - -
Manhaj p.26; see also Mahmud,
Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 304.
46 Mahmud, Al-Islam p. 80i Mahmud, al-Islam
min al-Falsafah, p. 303 .
..
47 --
Ibid., p. 303; Al-Islam pp, 23-33.
\
."
(

(';
33
J'
48 Mahmud, M t" 1 T f
. a - , p.
16.
49
A1-Tafkir, pp. 241-242.
50 Ibid., p. 241.
51 Mahmu-d, M t" 1 T f 16
an a - asawwu , p.
i
52
Descartes, R. Phi1osophica1 Essays. Trans. by L.J.
<Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merri1 Educationa1 Pub1ishing,
1977), pp. 24-30.
Manhaj p. 92.
54 - -
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 p. 308.
60 Al-Islam, p . 9l.
61
Ibid., p. 94.
"
62
Ibid., pp. 89, 9 0, 93, 95.
(
C
)'
"
34
63 Qur' an 3: 7
64 Qur' an 7: 52, 11: l , 41 : 3
65 - -. - c-
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir aI-Qur'an al- Azim, Vol. 2
.
(Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1970), pp. 5-12; see also
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
and ta'wI1. According to hirn, amPtguity to sorne
Qur'anic 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:
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

l
!
-"- ... ...._------- \
"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 t t l th d f dt
sugges s 0 rep ace e stu y 0 Go s
existence and His by the s udy of Islamic mission
and what makes a competent missionary;
can exist without the study of the kno
understood. See Mahmud, Al-Islam, pp.
mission
God s nat
* By modernism the Egyptian acquisition of
modern civ11izat1on .as a means of prornoting use of reason
in the interpretation of Islamic revelation .
,"
....
73 Mahrnud, ,Manhaj al-Islah, pp.
74 See Majallat Vols. 48,' 49 & 50.
75 Mahrnud, Manhaj p. 7.
f
76 - -
Amin, al-Khatir, Vol. 3, pp. 26-28.
77 c - - c
Muhammad Abduh, Al-Islam wa 'l-Nasraniyyah ma
wa ti-Madaniyyah, ed. by Muhammad Rida
.
_ Dar al-Manar, A. H. 1383), pp. 122-124; see also Amin,
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;
al-Islah, pp. 11-12. #
,
1
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
given 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 Mawqif al-Islam min pp. 601-60 2;
Mahmud, Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, p. 9
.
84
Ma'hmd, Manhaj al-Islah,
15,.
a

p
85
Mahrnd, Al-Islam, 16. p.
86
Ibid. , p. 8.
87
Mahrnd, Manhaj al-Islah, 7. p .


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 cAbd al-I}alIm Mat;md,
rbba wa Il-Islam (Cairo: MatbaCat Dar al-Jihad, 1959),
pp. 10-12.
(
c
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 CAbd al-HalIm MahmUd, AI-Fiqh al-Islam!,
. .
Majallat al-Az9ar 48 (Novernber 1976), p. 1329.
94 c Abd al-HalIm Mahrnd, Al-Shar!cah al-Is1amiyyah
fI Majlis 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,
- c -
Vol. 3, pp. 172-174; see also Uthman, Al-Fikr
al-Islam! wa al-Tatawwur (Cairo: Dar al.-Qalam, n.d.), pp. 3-7.
-.
-,
.
-- " ...........
(
C
J
38
100 Muhammad,cAbduh , Risalat al-TawhId (Cairo:
/' .
al-Mu'tamar al-IslamI,' 1956), pp. 154-156.
101 Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 155-156
.
102 CAbduh , 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.
105 Ib'd
o 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'. A b Th (0 f d"
r erry, e Koran Interpreted x or ~
Oxford University, Press, 1979), 20:99-102 & 29:51.
108
Mahmd, Manhaj al-Islah, p . 19.
. . .
109
KathIr, TafsIr
1
Ibn al-Qur' an, . ~ . IV, p. 536.
110
Mahmd, Manhaj al-Islah, 18-19.
,
pp.
.

III
Qur'an 42:13.
~
112
Qur'an 4:46, 2:75 oSe 33: 40.
--_. - ~ - - ----
;
(
i
c
39
113 Mahmud, Manjah al-Islah, pp. 16-17 ..
4
Il,4
Ibid., p. 6.
115 Taha Husayn, Mir'at Dar al-Macarif,
. .
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 Al-Islam, p. 32; also his article Mawqif
al-Islam min al-Fa1safah, p. 9.
c Abduh , Al-Islam wa a1-Nasraniyyah, pp. 120-127;
Muhammad cAmarah, A1-A
c
mal li Muhammad
,cAhduh , Vol. 1 (Beirut: a1-
C
Arabiyyah, 1972),
, C -
pp. 179-186; see also AmIn, Vol. 3, p. 173; uthman"
A1-Fikr al-IslamI, p. 249.
118 c Abduh , Risalah, pp. 7-8; see also cAbduh , Al-Islam
wa al-Nasraniyyah, p. 51.
1
119
Ibid., p. 113.
120 c
Abduh
, Risalah, p. 10.
121 cAbd Khallaf, Al-Siyasah al-SharCiyyah
(Cairo: Dar al-Ansar, 1977), pp. 34-36:
122 Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 98-99, 101.,
....
123 Ab 'i-Wafa al-GhunaymI al-TaftazanI, Madkhal ila
al-IslamI (Cairo: Dar a1-Thaqafah, 1974), p. 8.
i
_. - -----_. --_._-- or-
40
(
Mahmd; Al-Islam, p.91.
j
125 A1-TaftazanI, Madkhal ila al-Tasawwuf, pp.
J
..,.
..
,
. ,
(
,
l
1
.-
- ...............- -._- -
i.
, 1

(
CHAP.TER II
1
FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHY AND c ILM AL-KALAM!
Criticism of Philosophy
It is very important to Mahmd's
1
concept philosophy before analyzing his criticism of
it. To define philosophy, he reviews many definitions
provided by 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

actually derived from al-FarabI's thought.
3
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 metaphysics, morals, and
epistemology: rationality and spirituaIlty . 4 On account
of al-Sak_awI's ascription of definition to Aristotle
and its use in the works of the Muslim philosophers, Mahmud
- 41

- ... - Q,.
---------
. ,
------------------------------------
(
r
c
42
expects philosophy' to function as religion does.
5
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 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,
J
..
La philosophique de Dieu parait
ainsi solidaire de l'exigence
ouverte. Elle ne renvoie pas
rel que l'homme et le monde,
d'une mtaphysique
./"
une autre rgion du
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 il n'y a pas de rel tel
qu'il est, dans une sorte de signification littrale.
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-
sophe est incapable de parler de Dieu, mais
-
(

.
1
o
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 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 directed against philoso?hy in general while
notes of sorne of his works confine them to
Islarnic philosophy.12 Besides, his decision to assess'
philosophy in the light of Islamic precepts
13
indicates that
his arguments are developed only as an apology for establishing
...
faith.
primary concern of his thought is method,
, .
"
.. -- - -----.--"11,:----
(
1
c
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 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) ,

(d.91l/1S05) and others, in order to
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
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.
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
rarely cites references for the sources of "his ide as . 17 The
generality- of his criticisrn makes it difficult to deterrnine
,;
'r,
i
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 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 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
of differences within rationalism, he deduces
that the philosophers' pursuit of 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,
20 - -c - -
not from hurnan effort, -' dhalik al-tarig
- - - c
o tawfiq min Allah, wa-laysa huwa min iktisab al- 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,
21
incarnation or pantheism, etc. 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 articles published in Majallat al-Azhar,
Mahmd enumerates certain points where he focuses upon the
of philosophy, narnely:
l. Philosophy lacks a cri terion by which i t
distinguish what is rlght from what is
wrong. He says, that is, there is no criter ion
for philosophy (philosophical activities)
2. 'Probability (Le., doubt) is inseparable from
1
philosophical conclusions, because they rest
'solely on relative perceptions. He rnaintains
that neither Aristotelian logic nor
method can remedy this defect. 25
Cartesian
1
3. The persistence of philosophical disputes
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
1
1
i
1

(
\\
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,
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
only deelares its failure without proof.
28
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 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

(
1
/
1
48
levelled against it.
30
In fact, Mahmud's notion of Cartesianism corresponds
to that of sorne philosophers, 'especially Ayer's analysis
of scepticism briefly stated, What the philosophical
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-
t t
, 32
pre a 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' used as a synonym of
'inspiration' or kashf 'mysti;al il;bmination'
which its significance matches the contemporary lexcal
of 'intuition' .33
On the other hand, Descartes seemingly upholds the
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 Cartesian concept to Mahmud
,
will leave no room for revelation or Prophetie experience.
This inference is in the third
\
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
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 view if metaphysics is excluded from the
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
contradiction of religion.
39
Though syrnpathy with Sufisrn
cannot be denied as basic to his thinking, it is a traditional
. . l l 40
sam. 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
faith.
41
Descartes! concession to religious teachings 1s
not weIl appreciated by Mahmud who characterizes it as
.
a means of flattering the Church.
42
Of course, this interpretation is obvious in Descartes'
extract just cited, and merits certain validity.
In that quotation, Descartes contradicts himself by recommending
the acceptance of teachings established or discovered by a
method 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 reign of
Cartesianism.
Because of the importance of logic in philosophYJ
Mahmd believes that to refute it 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
"
which expresses that every metal expands when it is heated,'
restricting its validity to another discovery that might
f
. d ' . t 4
3
D t th . k h f .
con lrm or lsprove 1 .' ue 0 lS wea ness, e con 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.
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
of it.
46
Concerning deductive 10gic, Mahmd declares that
it i5 a victim of the same defect he ascribes to induction.
,
Since deductive arguments are' made up of inductive conclusions,
1
,

(
(
'.
52
Mahmd contends, neither of the two can work without
..
It is true that deduction starts from induc-
tive conclusions, but this relationship should not confine
the 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
any material sensation.
50
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,
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
is beneficial to the cornrnunity.
Therefore much is beneficial-to
the cornmunity
Hence, he repudiates deductive Iogic aslan authoritative
..
method of acquiring metaphysicai knowledge.
52
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 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
keeping to the rules of the categorical syllogism.
54
Having
,-
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
Every man speaks
Therefore Muhammad speaks.
~ explains that the knowledge of Muhammad's ability to
speak .( i. e., "the conclusion) is derived from the major premiss
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 ~ e r y man unless he is
certain that Muhammad possesses it, and this argument proves
:...
,
.
1
1
1
1
!
j
(
55
t b
. l 55
o e ar. 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 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
f
. t b t th . t . t 57
o e OppOSl. e rue.
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
/
what novelty is obtainable! through
included in the premisses,
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 59
relation to each other. 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, the emotional basis of his argu-
ment has made his criticism 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 admit that aIl
their 'conclusions are probtble.
believe that any conclusion drawn on the
basis of 'first principles' is necessarily certain and cannot
. ,
be denied metaphysical 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 entail
certi tu'de, the possibili ty of error sus tains thern as probable
1
- .. _----J
Mahmd's works probability,
opinion' or 'doubt', and it is
literally #nlfies 'me:tre
used to mean
k d
67 ' - '. 0
nowle ge, but -Mahmud uses lt mostly for the first
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 wrong. Likewise, in his attempt
to ascertain the persistence of "philosophical
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 it as a fauit. EventuaIly, he
this step by futility of .probable conclusions
from the successive refutations of the philosophers' opinions,
of one another on the same issues.
70
This 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 Mahmd's third point ,is that metaphysical
problems cannot be' unanimously solved bl' reason'" and that
revelation is the only
three points: (i) the futility of philosophical,conclusions,
. -
(ii) the of problems by rationality,
il
<, ,
,1
.... jIIf ..... ...
(
.( "
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
, .
problems arises from four things. First, he says that the
cornplexity of philosophical issues d:mands nurnerous
not just on the part of a number of philosophers but of " \
phnosophers of different eras. if Philosoph;
-'
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
that philosophers live / as the thrd factor, entails different
.
responses to the issues discussed in, philosophy. Fin.ally,
what William, James as 'personal temperament' or
'e,mo.tional constitution' by which a philosopher' s way of
thinking is tarned undoubtedly eontr ibutes to th persistence
f
'd' . t . h . l h 7
3
o l.versl. y l.n p 1. osop y.
Mahmud must be aware that the
.
(

59
differences for which he criticizes modernity in Egypt is
also a characteristic of a philosophical However,
,4 f
he treats this that of the complexity of meta-
physical issues in
74
a way that supports his arguments.
In other words, n these points a basis frorn which
he clothes rnetaphysics with a suprarational nature.
75
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
the negated ta'wIl in the Qur'an, sustain it as an opinion.
77
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 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
illusions accepted by reason as if they were
settled
Though he sees that reason is incompetent to establish
absolutely either affirmative or negative conclusions on
metaphysics, Kant believes it to be an unavoidable enterprise.
79
This attitude, to Mahmud, is awkward. He also opines that
.
metaphysical truths are knowable through SufI illumination-.
80
1
___ ____ _
(
..
(
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
The futility of the philosophical conclusions,
educed from argument on probability, is disputed
with the cumulative body of well-grounded knowledge which
philosophy has built.
82
Finally, none three points
\
on which Mahrnud postulates the failure of philosophy proves
ta be plausible. In spite of the weakness of his criticism,
the zeal achieving his aim has stripped his argument of __
objectivity in most cases.
Criticism of c I1m al-Kalam
As theological writings are not intended
83 -
for a scholarly purpose, 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
evaluation of Kalam.
85
Before doing this,
one or 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 of the dogmas and actions laid
down by the Legislator of religion, and
aIl opinions c6ntradicting them.
86
Ibn Khaldn (d.796j1406) says nothing different except
that he adds the phrase through rational proofs, by
- 87
wpich he specifies the method of Ka1am. 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 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
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
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
of the theologians.
93
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

tradition. 95 Even though the Mu
C
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
. .
their faith actually precedes this act.
96
,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
theologians were reported to have maintained that the
scope of Islamie theology eoncerns only the q4estion of faith
regarding the oneness of God, His names and attributes.
98

1
1
1
(
..
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
lOO
cP
Revelational texts .
..
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 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
102 -
people who claim the use of reason. Mahmud deduces from
al-GhazzalI's expression that Kalam has served its purpose;
therefore its early traditional method must now be restored.
He adopts also 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
1
(
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
intuition, by which Almighty God
and the truthfulness of Messengers are
known",--cannot be denounced'l" If it were
what then would be praiseworthy?
If (one says) revelation, one.has to. explain
by what rnethod the authenticity of
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
- c - c
ai-Falasifah which was separately published as Mi al- Ilm,
.
1
(
(
/
\
65
because this work indicates that al-GhazzalI never lost
j
confidence in reason.
l06
The understanding of many scholars
such as CAzqul, 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
, bt" t't d 107
1n 0 a1n1ng cer 1 u e. Even the light by al-
GhazzalI to have"been thrown into his mind, according to
signifies only an inner satisfaction with the validity
of the rational conclusion.
rOB
Mahmud's arguments 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 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
Muslim theologians.
112
The criticism advanced against
, Aristotelian logic by the earlyjMuslim and jurists
'dismisses this latter claim.
113
' probably, this is one of
the points for which al-GhazzalI was criticized for mixing
logic with the Islamic sciences.
114
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 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

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
in Kalam, Mahmd's view is sometimes basea on
. -----
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 interpret revelation by reasoning,
regard the Qur'an as the basis of aIL their speculative
activities.
120
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
- 122
justifies Kalam's method in the initial stage. However,
interprets its method as an innovation or a
.
deviation by citing sorne traditions, viz:
Obey and do not innovate, for the
of the nations before you was but a result
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, 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 In Arabic
lexicons, bidcah signifies 'a novelty, or an innovation,
in 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 the Qur'anic basis of Kalam does not
support the application of the third tradition to them either,126
and the legacy of discussed in the preceding chapter,
t
. t' d bl t" t 12
7
l
even sus 1 s re1gn as a rewar a e ac n
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
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 the
o'f God as a Creato'r. 128 This may sound weIl when Kalam
functions only 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
".
.J'
(
(,
69
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
1 t
130
reve a 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
h d Th' 1" 1" 13
2
w lC rea s, ere no cornpu Slon re 1910n.
Ibn Taymiyyah says that neither God nor His Messenger
faith of man without understanding
r
, and he cites sorne Qur'anic
'verses by which the Prophet was cornrnanded to exp1ain and
the be1ieveis to ponder the Revelation of God.
133
Furthermore,
he explains that the negated interpretation [al-ta'wI1
al-manfIJ on which Mahmd postu1ates his view is not
. '
but what is identical with the one negated in the verse
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
included in thern.
135
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
/
(
,
\
(.,
i
$

1

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 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
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
. - 138
suggests to be excluded from Kalam, the y were
raised decisively for securing one's faith or disrnissing one's

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.
1
c'
(
(
"
.
NOTES
Chapter II,
l Mustafa CAbd al-Raziq, TaIDhld li 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 1974), p. 309; YaCqb ibn Ishaq al-
.
KindI, Al-KindI's Metaphysics, transe by L. Ivry
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1974), p. 8;
Ahmad Fu'ad Al-KindI Faylasf al-cArab (Cairo:
: C
Matba at Misr, n.d.), p. 274.
2 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
- - c
Mahmud, Al-Islam wa ',1.-.
5 Mahmud, Al'-TafkIr, pp. 236-243
.
6 .
Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 31, 51-52; see also his
.
Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafh, p. 8.
71

,':
,(
,; 1
, ...

,/
72
)
, .
7 G., Gqsdorf, Trait de M,taphysique (Paris: Colin,
1956), pp. 373-375; see also al-Rahman BadawI, Madkhal
JadId ila 'l-Falsafah (Kuwait; Waka1at 1975),
p. 213.
8 See Mahrnd, pp. 223- 274; cf. Mahmd,
Al-Islam, pp. 49-63.
9
See Mahrnd' s prefatory notes on .Al-TafkIr al-FalsafI,'
, p. 14.'
10 This statement belongs ta Mahmd, but cAbd al-Raziq
.
says only tht Kalam, Sufism, and Usul al-Fiqh have bederne
. -
tamed by the tendency. See his TarnhId, p. 74-76;
Mahmd, A1-TafkIr, p. 12 .
.
Il Ibid.,
pp 29 f, 29 7
p., 8i Mahmud, Mawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah,
.
12 Mahmud, Al-Islam, pp. 62, '75; 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'

cf. Mahmud, AI-TafkIr, pp.
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 cMawqif <al-Islam Dlin al-
Falaafah, pp. 308-309,. :
::
... __ _____ J .......________ ......
l...

i
t
(
16 This remark can be traeed by comparing his works with
one another, especially, AI-Is1rum wa 'l-cAql (Cairo: Dar
al-Kutub 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 edited together with
. s AI-Munqidh min al-9alal (Cairo: Maktabat al-
Anglo 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
Can Fann al-Mantig wa 'l-Kalam, ed. by CAlI samI al-Nashshar

(Cairo: AI-Khanaj 1, 1947).
19 Al-Islam, pp. 22, 53-54.
20 Mahmd, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p. 8.
\( . .
..
21 Ibid.
22 Al-Islak, pp. 79-80; 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 cMawqif al-Islam min al-Falsafah, pp. 293-294.
. .
'.
-.... ,---- - --
, - .
J
(
1
"
.,
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 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 Dictionary (Interna-
tional Edition).
35
Descartes, Philosophical Essays, p. 156.
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
(
Cl
75
37 Descartes, Philosophical pp. 75-126, l52-156;
see also Ahmad Fu'ad al-AhwanI j MacanI 'l-Falsafah
.
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 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; cMawqif al-Islam min 0
p. 295.
44 Manhaj al-Islah al-IslamI, pp. 79-90; see
also cAbd al-HalIm Mahmd, al-Islam min al-Fann wa
. .'
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,
c - - c - .
pp. 64-68; cf. Abbas Mahmud al- Aqqad, AI-Falsafah al-
.
gur'aniyyah (Cairo: Dar 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 1950),
.
pp. 107-111.
50
,\,
al-Bahth

1977), p.
Ibid., pp. 108, 110i see a1so Manahij
al-Falsaft (k1exandria: al-Hay'ah
12.
SI Randall and Buchler, Philosophy, p. 75.
(
52 Mahmud, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p. 13; Mahmd,
. ' . . .
pp. 60-61 i see also 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;

also Joseph D. Hassett, S.J. et al., The Philosophy of
Human Knowing 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 al-Ta:awwuf, p. 13; 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; 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 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 pp". 76-80; Mahmud, cMawqif al-Islam
..
min al-Falsafah, pp. 298-299.
76 Jacob Needleman, ed., The Sword of Gnosis, (Baltimore,
(
Maryland: 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, The Nature of
(London: Macmillan, 1965), ppp 133-135.
80 M ti 1 T f 18 23 31
an. q a - , pp. -, .
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, 81-103. pp.

",
85
Mahmd, Al-TafkIr, 463-476. pp.

86 c - c
Abd al-Raziq, TarnhId, p. 203; Louis Gardet, Ilm
al-Kalam,. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 3, New Edition
(Leiden: E.J. Brill & London: Luzac & Co., 1971);
see also Yahya 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
SubhI al-Salih and FarId
.. ' .
p. 25.

la Thologie Musulmane, trans. by
Jabr. Vol. 3 (Beirut: >Dar al-cIlm,

'(
j
__ u __ .... ___ ..
'-
80
88 cAbd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad al-lji, Al-Mawaqif fi c'llm
al-Kalarn (Beirut: cXlam al-Kutub, n.d.), p. 7; cAbd
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, al-Islamiyyin, Vol. 1 .
.
- c
(Beirut: Dar al- llm, 1979), pp. 8,12; see also Fazlur Rahman,
lslamic Methodology in History (Karachi: Central Iqstitute of
- c - c -
'lslamic Research, 1965), p. 114; Karim Azqul, a1- AgI fi
Il-Islam (Beirut: Matabl
c
Sadir RayhanI, 1946), pp. 16-17.
. .
90 Ibid., pp. 13-14; BadawI, Madhahib al-IslamiyyIn, p. "8;'
see also W.M. Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought,
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
Theology, ed. ,by Parvis Morewedge.
of New York Press, 1977) ,}p. 72.
(
the Islamic Philosophical
(Albany: State University
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

, '
-
1
C'
1

!
;
!
f
,

81
96 Al-AhwanI, MacanI Il-Falsafah, pp. 132-133.
97 M.A.
the Schpo1 of
p. cf. L.
Cook, The Origins of Ka1am, Bulletin of
Oriental African Studies 43 (Part l, 1980),
c -
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.
98 AI-TahawI,
. c -
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-
C
Aql 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,
, and Constitutiona1 Theory (New Delhi, India:
Amarko Book Agency, 1973), p. 120; al-AhwanI, MacanI II-Falsafah,
pp. 131-132; 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; Al-TafkIr,
p. 238.
103
Ibid., pp. 467-468.
o
104 CAzql, Al-
C
Aql fI Il-Islam, pp. 80-83.
,
d ZI.
(
. -

, ___ rl' __ .. _ ..... --

82
105 c Abd al-HadI Abu RIdah, cAl-CAql c ind
Al-cArabI 249 (1979), pp. 34-35.
106 CAzqul, AI-CAql fI Il-Islam, rp . 22-25; Al-Imam
-- - - \ -
al-Ghazzali, Mantig Tahafut al-Falasifah al-Musamma Mi yar
C - - c-
al- Ilm, ed. by Su1ayman Dunya. (Caire: al-Ma arif, 1961),
pp. 19-22; see also Al-Imam al-GhazzaII, Tahafut a1-
Falasifah, ed. by sulayman Dunya. (Cairo: al-Macarif,
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-Dirasat a1-Fas1afiyyah, vol. 1, p. 211.
109 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,
i
pp. 67-70; Frank,
Ka1am and Philesophy, p. 74.
114
AI-Nashshar, Manahij a1-Bahth, p 242.

115 c - - c
Abd al-Jabbar Ahmad, Firag wa Tabaqat al-Mu tazilah,
ed. by cAlI Sam! al-Nashshr and c Isam al:DIn Muhamird cAlI.
(Cairo: Dar PP: 167-168.
-
(
(
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, p. 48.
. , .
119 H.A.R. Gibb, Moharnmedanism (New York: Oxford University
c - c - -'
Press, 1962), p. 114; see also Azgu1, A1- AgI fi 'I-Is1am,
p. 19.
120 Al-AhwanI, MacanI 'l-Falsafah, pp. 132-133.
121 Mahmd, Al-Islam, p. 9
.
122 cAbduh , Risalat a1-TawhId, p. lai 'see also his
Al-Islam wa pp. 48, 51i cf. Mahmd, Al-Islam,

p. 13.
. ..
123
Ibid., p. 85.
'-...
124 L
ane,
c;:;.o=n, part I, p. 167.
125 AI-Ghazza1i, A1-Munqidh, pp. 58-59; cAbd l-Raziq,
- c - c - -
Tarnhid, pp. 253-264; Azqul, Al- AgI fi 'l-Islam, p. 17;
c - - -c c -
see also Abd al-Karim Ghal1ab, Sira a1-Madhhao wa '1- Aqidah
fI 'l-Qur'an (Beirut: Dar 1973), pp. 213-221." """" ...... " ....

., : , , , .: , " , , , , l " " ,,' '" ,1
126 Al-AhwanI, MacanI '1-Fa1safah, p. 133.

1
{
, J :. ' , , , f ' , r
- .
84
..
127 Jamal a1-DIn al-QasirnI a1-DimashqI, TarIkh al-
Jahmiyyah wa '1-Mu
C
tazi1ah (Belrut: Mu'assasat al-Risalah,
19 7 9), pp . 7 7 - 8 3 .
128 -. . - -
Hash1m, Inh1yar al-Bina', Al-Azhar p. 1316;
see also CAzql, A1-
C
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., 15 19
pp. - .
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 Dar' TaCarud al-CAql,... pp. 206-207.
, " 1
.' JI'
, " , .' .
, 1 J" , , l'
137
pp. 46-48.
138 Mahmd, Al-Islam, pp. 32, 86-101.
139 Yahya Hashim Farghal, Hukm al-Tasa'u1 fI MaSa'il
Majal1at al-Azhar 48 (April, 1976), pp. 441-444.
li

.'
I ______ ___ j___ _ ... "f'_M-_ ..... la
---- ...... ...
(
"
CHAPTER III
FOCUS OF THOUGHT
. '
/
It has been earlier noteq that
Sufism his writings and that his method of achieving
the knowldge of God is mostly derived frpm sorne preceding
Muslim scholars.' The common"target of advanced
by aIl Muslirn theologians and jurists, including the
MuCtazilites, was the rationalistic character of Aristote-
lian logic extended to the Greek notion of ,
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-
lished the doctrine of acquisition.
2
Likewise, Mahmud
considers Ibn Taymiyyah to be outside the Traditional
School [al-salafiyyahJ because of his use of reason in the
study of the Divine attributes.
3
By recourse to Sufi ec-
stasy, Mahmud attempts to replace Ibn Taymiyyah's
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 autobiography that the
,1
85
---_--.. ....... ---- -
-,..- - _ ... -- ...----
---
(
(
86
topic of his doctoral dissertation un
Musulman Religieux et Moraliste) led him to a'
1 thorough study of Sufism.
5
Earlier, he seems to have been
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
al-Azhar, and its persistence whenMahmud was a student at
this University is probable.
7
Actually, reaction to
what he to 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,
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 could be 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 tranquil{ty of and calm-
l completed the doctoral prograrn and
l was certain of what the method of Muslim
life should be, i.e., the rnethod of
..
CI
j
J
/

r
,
c
" '
..
87
, 8
obediencQ.
,.
Due to his conviction that thought was ade-
J'-"' -"-".
quately and accurately presented'by al-GhazzalI
and cAbd al-Wahid Yahya (i.e., Ren Gunon d.1371/l951),
. .
o
L
adopts many views of these personalities.
9
He
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
totelian logic by Muslim critics, including al-GhazzalI,
as only an attempt to explain the appropriate way of
. " Il
uS1ng reason. By declating a part of Muqaddmah fI
.. Mantig- al-Tasawwuf (Cairo, 1952) 'as a digest of sorne arti-
0
cles written by Ren Gunon, acknowledges his debt
, 12
to the French scholar. This work is rernarkably felt in
aIl of Mahmud's writings on Islamic 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
was his negative reaction to 'rnodernity'
in Egypt. Though thi:s ()issue was ol.der than Mahmud himself,
, .
it resurged in 1940's when he and his conternporaries
returned from Europe.
Sufisrn, in its modern form, has been attacked and
",
i
_JJ
1
1
(
88
C declared as a deviation from 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
Sayyid Qutb and cALI al-TantawI in 1944.
16
Like Mahrnud,
. .
'.
both Qutb and al-TantawI maintain that faith is
through intuition alone, and that reason is an aid
for the interpretation of what is intuitively know.
17
This view was refuted by Khallaf.
18
If one compares
"
Mahmd's argument with the of Muhammad cAbduh
and the aforemntioned scholars, one will not doubt
that his writing was a reaction to such This can
be substantiated by the following statements':
. . ,
.
-
AlI that l wrote on Suf'ism and notable
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
and law.
19
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
- - _. - '--
1
---------,
(
1
J
(
,-
89
he acknowledges in many of his works that AI-slm wq l-cAS1
is the treatise by which he advocates his concepts on
, - ,
methodology, this book portrays both the negatrve and
aspects of his thought. The is his reaption 0
to in Egypt Jnd his criticism of scholastic Jnd .
philosophic methods. ' He says 1 we do not resist
\
modern civilization, we will not be worthy of an Islami
"-
identity, nor will we be the founder of the
Islamic religion. :0 he to other Muslim
thinkers work collectively for the of aIl
foreign Though his discussion on this topio,
,
especially on both 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 refutat!on.
The Philosophie Method ls Use fuI but
1
Not .
Cl Il
The circularity of'inductive logic affirmed by
Ayer as being unavoidable
22
has been held by Ibn Taymiyyah
the syllogistic 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. prior knowledge must be ac-
quired through either intuition or deduction. With the
<i- ',,-
, ..
former, the particulars of universal premiss to be es-
: ,
j
,1
1
___ t ...... J
, /
.,
/
.c
i .
90
,
i
tablis'hed should De \ easily known through the sarne
intuitive method .. If,this prior knowledge of its being
universal is aequired through deduction, 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 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
24
be known otherwise than by demonstration.
(?
,
He finally summarizes the shorteomings of the de-
ducbive 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
i h h h f l f
,25
ste system not t e uman aeu ty 0 reason1ng.
, '
/'
\
-- . -.- --. ..... _.1
(
e
r
Q 1
,
o ,
,
! "
(
---:-
, !
91
,
'"
-1 " ,
God
"
''hrough Sufism Only
As for the positive of Mahmd's t-hought,
it ts the ideas published with Ren biography
that he adopts. Mahmd repeats these ideas in many of
. .
his other works.
2
' They represent his belief in the
. knowability of Gpd or metaphysics in general through an
extra besides sJnses and H says:

l,
,a
Besides senses and intellect, Islam
,guides humanity to another source
,
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 the appropriate method that
leadsto the acquisition of real gnosis.
27fr

Furthermore he declares to be substantially a
science which the knowledge of metaphysics.
28
On the 9ther hand, adhesion to this type
0
of Sufism makes hLffi self-contradictory. In one of his
l').e explains that God set the obj ect and rneans
of grasping metaphysics'in the Qur'an,29 and any pursuit
of metaphysical is therefore a blasphemy. Man's
.
response, Mahmd maintains, should be only submission to
1
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
1
fre 'th Ej-penCe of the BookJ, and others
1 (
...
'c
i' '
\ .
'(, '
...
amblguous the interpretation of which, he maintains,
should be entrusted to God. 31' This position is ip
.
no"way consistent with Mahmd 1 S 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 from
,;o., -
v Plotinism that' anctioned in one of his works.
32
!,Mahmd can then be in the circle of intellectual
- - c - 33..
Sufis, as al- Aqqad identifies them, though his tena-'
, . '
crous objection to the use of reason in seerning-
ly suggests ,to include him in that of emotional SufIs;
is better to identify hirn in general a
gnoJti'c
,
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 [al-nuss 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/
,1
1
"
.
,

'C
,ll
\ .
\.\
1
93
" 'blel?sing' [al-barakahJ, and this require5 a
director' [a}-shayk,bJ for a A certificate
l 'Q,
al-silsilah is initially issued ta his
disciple who is afterwards ta the greatest
noly war against any mundane thing beside God. Mahmd ex-
1
plains that novice will 501ely pursue spiritual
1.
tations and of Gad progressing by graduaI
passage
usual
the stages [a1-maqamat], un-
l-ahwal] culminating in
.
Mahmd elabortes the SfI stages and states in
nis al-Madrasah al-Shadhiliyyah al-HadIthah wa Imamuha,35

,
and treats thern briefly in his works. Man
7
iq
1
al-Tasawwuf, he lists three 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 and explains
in order, 'e.g.
' ..
,
l. steadfastness
2. persistent fear of Gad
"
3. love of God 1
1
i
1
..
4. vision of Gad
1
Self,in
/
G0d 5.
, l.osing one's
1
the 'fst
1
1
While expounding how state 15 experienced, he
s\Ys that gnostic loses his self,in God with a power-
that strips the former of his senses of hearing and seeing
1
until he utters secretly or openly'that,oThere 15 none
in the garment save God. Furthermore, Mahmd explains the
,1
'.
"
1
.
./
(' ..
(
'- ,
1
, .
1
, , .
9,4
'1
metaphysical .acquired through Sufisrn as the
'real knowledge of the: Divine 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
of God, but they differ on the extent of thls laim and
-
the,authoritative method of acquiring knowledge. Ac-
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 contrary tb (the claim of) sophism.,
But modern interpretation of this-citation applies ta
i '
its Fonnotation r.to the metphysical knowledge that can be
acq-qirep. a method consisting of'
and the two sources of the Qur'ah and the
Beside, S'ayyid Qutb maintains an ta
/
that Qf Mahrniid that faith is obtainable malnly through
\
1
. '
-
t
o /
< \
'emotional logic' al-wijdanI], and his view \
,
1
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...
, ,
.,-:'
l
(
/
", 1
(
, .
)
'" 95
authoritative means of acqu}ring faith, then there would
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 without having it examined intellectually
.0
-
and
. To examine Sufism in rnodern>thought,
Muhammad c Abduh , a prominent pf modernity in
it as the core of Islam but he denounces
its developed forrn.
42
cAbduh's discrifination has
elaborated many scholars such as Mustafa cAbd' al-Raziq, ,
Ahmad AmIn, Muhammad Ghallab, cAbbas Mahmud al-CAqqad and
.
others.
43
They expIa in that apparently
1
taught by many Qur'anic verses, 'was thej trend which,developed
fnto sufism.
44
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
SfIs confine their spiritual activities to the sope of
Qur'anic injunctions only. The 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 it into theoretical and trends
1,
c - ,
and al- Aqqad into intellectual Sufism, ernotional Sufism
and Sufism with an extreme or a moderate notion of asceti-
,
If
/
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 of,God or gnosis de-
clared as the central conctrn of Sufism by
to have neither a basis in' texts nor
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 the above citation. The
1
t1adition just cited or its like was used against the
pursuit of bylMahmd,48 but he did
not consider' it as being applicable te the Suf! pursuit of
metaphysical knowledge. However,- the origin of gnosis
historically ascribed to Ibn 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 the belief that it is
1 a mere innovation. Also, pantheism and the doctrine of
incarnation claimed by Mahmud as ways plausibly leading to
God used to be reconciled with Islamic monotheism. If the
foregoing hopefully showssorne' of Sufism
------_ ....... _--_.-....------
\
1
lt
i
J
1
.. '

,
(
1
1
o
.
(
\
9T
according 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
Sufism as the major
has been presented above as
System
1
cG'Jncern of Mahmud' s though t
1
J system consisting of stages
and states aIl of which, he lead to the direct
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
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 of the authority
claimed for this idea, the significance of method needs
ta be reviewed in order to determine the class to which
..
Sufism belongs.
In the Dictionary bf Phi1osophy, method is said
to have three different meanings:
1. Any' procedure ta attain a certain
end.' "
'.
1
i
,
i
1
J

!
1
;.J
1
2.
\r
. ) 98
l' .
Any technique
,
employed in the process
of acquiring knowledge of a given subject
matter.
3. 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 knowledge clairned by the
t
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 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 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
at their Lord.52 As the anthropomorphic element is
"
bpsic in the human concept of sight, many diverse opinions
are held on its possibility even in the life to come.
53
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
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 a,nd _ place' 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 of 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
by Rida from the visionists tashab-al-shuhd] of the
. -.
, ,
intellectual SfIs' [sfiyyat al-haga' iq:J.

nei ther the )Qur 'an nar the prophetie tradi tian aff irms the
possibilty of vision of Gad in this world. Many notable
such as al-KalabadhI al,-QushayrI condemn any
seeker that claims the occurrence of Gad' s v.isibili ty in
thls 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
1 1
state in Sufism. The' aonnotation of 'seing od in
_ 0'
direction and place', seems inconsistent Wiih Islamic
monotheism. Al though remark not' disprove the
occurrence of the seeker's vision of God, the plausibility
o
..
(
\
1
10'0
of Mahmd's claLm 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
carnation which 1s contrary not only to orthodox Islam
but also to Mahmd's other of al-fanal as
'to lose onels abominable qualities for 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
say,
61,
.is the Messiah, Mary's son, one may deny the
conformity of 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-
cati'on of the knowledge obtainable through Suf ism as
!..:'!.!,
being an kn9wledge of God's Essence, His attri-
butes, and other metaphysical realities.
62
To verify
whether claim ,is true or not, one needs tg know the
factors that 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
before main goal'could be achieved. Th lexical
meaning,of scepticism a doubting state of rnind,64
but this word was' made a technical terrn by the epistemolo-
gists who also gave it th'ree different denotations; namely:
- ----
i
r
\
1
1
!
1
lJ
--
(
10'1
His denial of the posslbility of doubt in accord-
ance :ith carresianism, and distrust "Of_bath
senses and inbellect suggest a harmony between MahmQd's
scepticism aJd the last two of the definitions 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 both intellect senses in the process of ac-
/
quiring faith, and this justifies
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 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 for certitude. The latter proposi-
. 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
This concept 1s provable in remark that, The
-,
experience of a gnostic 15 like that of a person who f1rst
" .. ',','
.
"
- ,
...
.. __ .. _ ...-_ ..... ___ ___ """_' ___ --'-________ _
, 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 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
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 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)
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
does not necessarily lead to knowledge. Mahrnd says,
The acquisition of reached only
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
"
h
1
l
,
.
\
1

1
, (,j
(
103
"
but (the knowledge) that they are incapable of knpwing
Him;72 this gives a hint that Sufism does-nof
lead to any new knowledge of God, and it remains only a
means of attaining righteousness.
As for Mahmd's 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 imply This'
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 What distinguishes knowledge is
not certainty but evidence;75 this is the common,notion
of knowledge in The gnostic SufIs'are there-
fore to justify their claim of immedia'te knowle<?-ge
of God' s It is stated :Ln the Qur' an, that, There is
like Him .. and thus it seems impossible to 'sub-
stantiate this kind without involving anthro-
elements in the description. may there-
reject this demand with a popular excuse based on
the emotional 'character of the SfI s..}!'stem, that gnosis (;;.
'l,
,or illuminative knowledge is ineffable.
77
the fact that
/
'1
l
j ,
f
1
, ,
j
1
L
(
)
104"
the prophet explained his experien}e during the same tirne
he received 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:
asserts that Muhammad saw his Lord, lies.78
Nevertheless, he described variou5 manners of hJ.s re-
velational
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-
dresses me, and l have present in mind
what he says. 79 ,; .
l,
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 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
promises to qerve ls defeated.
"
"
\
1
1
!
/
1
,-----_ ...... __ ....
. '
,
. ,-
NOTES.
Chapter- II1<-
l AI-Nashshar, Nash'at fI Il-Islam,
Vol. 1., pp.' 30-31.
" 2
According to Professer Watt, fhe doctrine of
C'
acquisition is traceable in theugh its form may
not be wholly identical with that in AShcarisrn. See W.H.
Watt, The Origin of the Doctrine of Acquisition,
Jornal of the Royal Asiatic Vol.7l, (1943),
pp. 234-247; a1-Nashshar cites Ab HanIfah (d.150j760)
1
as the real founder of this concept. al-Nashshar,
Nash'at al-Fikr, Vol. l, p. 311.
3 Mahmd, Al-Tafkir al-Falsafi, p. 106.
4 Mahmd, HadhihI HayatI, p. 178,; Mahn\d,
QD
Mawqif al-Islam min a1-Falsafah, Al-Azhar, p. 308 .
1

, ('
. \
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.
1
1
!
105

\ .
(
\
c
106
1 -
7 See cAbd al-Muta
C
al TarIkh al-Islah fI
'l-Azhar, Vol. 1 (Cairo: MatbaCattal-ICtimad, n.d.), P. SOi
, "0 __
also the Azhar's recognition of Shaykhs of Sufi orders
'indicates its prevalence
KhafajI, Al-Azhar fI Alf
1
1954), ,p. 96.
:1 c . .
in Egypt. See M. Abd al-Mu'min
c- .)
Am, Vol. 3 (Cairo:' Al-Minbariyyah,
f
8 Mahmud, HadhihI Ha -' 1,' pp. 177, 178.
9 " 0 - _ c
,compare the of Al-Islam wa '1- Agl
(Cairo: Dar al-Kutub, 1966) with those of
al-Muslim (cairo: Al-Angle, ""'1954) J (Biegraphy of Ren Gunon) '"
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 cAbbas Mahmud al-CAqqad, Al-TafkIr FarIdah

Islamiyyah (Cairo: Dar al-Qalam, n.d.). pp.
12 AI-FaYlasf al-Muslim
1954), p. 12: HadhihI p .. 166.
,
13 Compare the of his Mantiq al-Tasawwuf with

those of Al-Islam wa ,'l-cAql and Manhaj al-Islah al-ISlamI fi
; .
Mujtama
c
.
14 Muhammad RashId Rida, Al-Murshidn wa '1-Murabbun
aw al-Mutasawwifah wa 'l-Sufiyyun, AI-Manar 6 (1897/8), pp.
722-730. j
15 Mahmd, Mantiq a1-Tasawwuf, p. 22. /,
. , .
, ,
.'
1
1

---..... ---c-----. ---.-----......-. -------
(
(
('
the
16 S 1
issues :r;
107
the articles by these
621-650 of AI-Risi1ah.
..
scho1ars in
17 Sayyid Qutb, AI-Mantiq al-WijdanI wa 'l-cAqIdah,
. .
A1-Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 629 (1945), -pp. 778-781; see ,a1so
, .
cAlI a1-.ran!awI, AI-CAqIdah bayn al-
C
Aq1 wa
,Al-Risa1ah, Vo1.,13, No. 648 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. 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
- c foL '-
(aeirut: Dar al-Ma rifah, n.d.), p. 107; Jalal a1-Din a1-
&
- - - c
Suyuti, Sawn al-Mantiq wa '1-Ka1arn 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
c - c '- i C
ed. by Abd a1-Razzaq Hamzah and- S. Abd al-Rahman
MatbaCat 1951), pp. 207; a1so ai-'
Nashshar"Manahij a1-Bahth, pp.

. l
,
,
.,_.- ... _ .... .. _ .. -.:-, ,...::.._--=:::======
'( ,
'.
108
..
24
Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 233.
,
25 Ibid., p. 219.
1
26 Al-Madras ah a1-Shadhiliyyah
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;
pp. 241-242.
AI-TafkIr al-FalsafI,
33 See 'Al-Tafklr FarIdah pp;
..
167-168'.
J' ._
34 - '.
'pp. 27-28.
-
. 35 Mahmd, Al-Madrasah'al-Shadhiliyyah al-Had1thah, pp.
j i
1.
341.
. ,
36 Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, pp. 39-42; Mahmud,
'II
Al-TafkIr, p. 470.

..

1
1
1
\
,
, 109
.
?7 c
Abd
al-Ma-jld
'l-Binyah' al-Is1amiyyh
1980), 132.
a1-N'aj jar, AI-CAq1 wa 'l-Sulk fI .'
, 'r C (, -
(Madanayn,Tunisia: Matba at 'al-Janub,
-6 J '
38
Ibid., pp. 1,3'3'-147.
"f
39 Qutb, AI-Mantiq pp.
1 ' ..,
781' 1313, 1315.
Mahmud, Man g al-Tasawwuf,' p. 16: cf. Qutb,
AI-Ris:'lah, pp. 778-781.
.
\
1 42 Muhammad CAmarah,'ed.,
CAbduh , Vol. 3 (Beirut:
AI-A
c
mal a1-Kamilah li Il-Imam
al-CArabiyah,
(j , .
1972),; 528, 530.
l '
\ .
1.
43 cAbd al-Raziq, TamhId a1-Palsafah a1-
.
!slamiyyah, p. 74, Ahma Amin, al-Islam, Vol. 4 (Beirut:
Dar k1-Kitab a1-
c
Arabi, 1969); pp. 154;-164; Ghallab,
AI-Tasawwuf (Cairo: Nahdat Misr, 1956), pp. 33-37;
CI-- __ 1
Al- IslamIyyah, pp.
. '
, 44 Amin, al-Islam, Vol. 4,' p. 150; Gha11ab',
A1-Tasawwuf al-Muqaran, p. 29.
1 1
\
45 '
p. 35; al-CAqqad, AI-TafkI;, p. 171; AmIn,
Zuhr al-Islam"p. 150.
)
o
46 Gha11ab, pp-. 33-34;
AI-TafkIr, pp. 167-168.
1
1
"'.
\
..
, ...
.. ....... -_ .......
i$
-- --... .--....,- -..'_ ..... ... -..
. ,
1
, ,
..
, "
. '
. "
, 1
1
. .....
(
..
,.
v
. 47
..
C
Abduh,
48
Mahrnud,
.
49
Ghallab,
- 1
110

&
r
Risalat al-T_awhId, 46. p.
i
Al-Islam wa 'l-
c
ql, p . 91.
I-Tasawwuf
.. -
al-Mugaran,
J?
1
/
';f
('
35.
'.
" ,
a
.,'
50 1
Runes, et al., Dicticrrary of Philosophy, p.
51 2;165.
52
Ibid., 75:23
. '
-
53 Ab Il-Hasan cALI ibn Magalatal-
IslamiyyIn wa Ikhtiia:f 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.
,-
-'\
54 Mahmud, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, P', 42 .

-.
55 Mahmud, Al-TafkIr al-FalsafI, p. 474.
57 Muhammad al-Qurlah al-
ShahIr bi TafsIr af-Manar, Vol. 9 (Cairo: Dar al-Manar, . 1367 .
1.
A.B.), pp. .
58 Abu Bakr Muhammad, Al-KalabadhI., AI-Tacarruf li-
Madhhab Ahi al-Tasawwuf; ed. by c Abd al-HalIm Mahrnud and Taha
c Abd al-Baql (Cairo: ,AI-Halab'i, 196'0), p. 43 i cAbd al-Karim
ibn ,Hawazin -Al-Risalah al-Qushayriyyah fi c 11m al-
Tasawwuf (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-CArabiyyah, 1912), p. 160':
"
.(

t
i
1
-1
.
1
J
,
1
. -
...
,
,
. -- ---_.-.-- ---- ---------------
'r
.'
. ,
, "
(
III
, , 0
59 Mahrnd, Mantiq al-Tasawwuf, p.'42.
i
,
A.S. Hornby, Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of'
Current (Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 774.
c 65
Hassett, et al., The Philosophy of Human Knowing,
;
p 18.
66 Mahrnd, Mantiq pp. 37-39
'2
67 Mahrnd, Al-TafkIr al-FalsafI, p. 470
68 ,-
Walter Kaufman, ed., Critique of Religion and
, .. Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton Universi'ty Press, 1978), p. 318.
'69
Q Ibid.
, "
Madkhal ila 'l-Tasawwuf, p. 135
. 71 hm dM' 1 T f 24
Ma u, antlq a - asawwu , p.
, .
72 A1-Kalabadh1, AI-Tacarruf,
, . p. 67.; trans. ,
The Doctrine of the S'fls, p. 51.
"
!
1
t
1
1
1
J
t
/
_ ___
(
r
>
(
ta
1
!
1
,
112
73
Kaufman, CritIque of Religion, pp. 108-114;
.
see
;
aiso H.A. Knowing and Believing, in the Knowledge
and 'Belief, ed. by A. Phillips Griffi ths. (London: Oxford
niversity Press, 1967), pp. Norman Knowledge
and Belief, in The Theory of Knowledge, ed. by J.V. Canfield
and F.H. Donnell, Jr. (New York:, Meredith Publishing Company,
1964), pp. 136-147.
1
74
Kaufman, Critique of Reason, 109. p.
75
:J;bid. \
1
76
Qur'an. 43: Il.
77
Kaufman, Critique of Religion, pp. 314-322.
1.
78
SufIs,
,
\
Arberry, The Doctrine of the p 26.


79
Watt:, Islamic Revelation, 16. p.
80
Kaufman" Critique of p. 318; see also
A.J. Ayer, The Central Questions of Philosophy, pp. 4-7
\
{
1
1
1
1
1
'"
(
c
'-
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 of using the senses in acquiring the
of God, for in his view they perce ive only the
1 \ 1 \
phySica:l objects with',which God is net idential, Senses
cannot led us to (the ,knowledge of) the Unseen since we
-
t
.. t l
canno percelve 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
([Jfl ,
that God cannet be logica1ly or religious}y considered a
being, buJ His Essence does not te be p.er-
113
,\
\
"

" (
i
,
, .
L
t
, 1
J
c
d 1
114
cept:ib1j: in any case to man, be the rnethod of seeking Him
sensory or otherwise,o and this ls in 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 to "man's senses.
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
in the first chapter and detai1ed in the second.
He ini,tial1y postulates his objection on the division of
!
the Qur' anic text into the c1ear and the ambiguous verses
denying the knowabil:i,ty of the latter to man, but 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 limitation
was shawn to be indisputable. In other wor,ds, man' s
1
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, on creedal issues, on,'ly through
intellectual satisfaction. On account of adoption of
Plotinism analyzed in the second chapter, Mahmd revokes his
total re,jection of the use of reason and confines it to 'the
1
o
,
(
115
initial stage in the of acquiring
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 S atlopton of Plotinism, he and other SfIs
o
fuse :;>lotinus,' "Communion with God'in the Islamic concept
of knowledge. Atually, notions are not consistent
wi th each other 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 is ponderable through ecstatic
,
contact. He creates aIl things and is superior te every-
'. thing orig:i.nated bi 4 . In contrast, Islam teaches
God possesses an,Exalted Essence [al-dhat al-CaliyyahJ
which is" not lmmediately perceptible to man, but ,ta ;hich
aIl 'the 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
Prophetie trflditions such as, There is naught like Him, 5
and Ponder: the bounties (or creatures) of Gad, not His'
, 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 seems plausible.
Rrardless
91s"tion ta
of his man9 self-contradictions, Mahmud' 5 sug-
endow Sufism 'with cognitive in the
J
1
.'. ....---...-....------,---------
(
c
116
1
\
study of metaphysics contradict\ the commendation made by
the Prophet who said, I am th you (i. e., the
Muslims) two things and you i11
l
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.
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, 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 as knowledge
is in fact faith and cannot be contrasted with scho1ar1y
rational enterprises of inquiry. Finally, Mahmd's
appears' to be invariably circular and superf1uous
because it establishes the established. In our view, the
j
l
1
1
j
t
- ---_. --

117
\
rnethod of acquiring the knowledge of God re-
mains reason aided by Divine guidance.
' .
..
:
.
1 ,
d,

,
r
'f
l

1
< '
(
l ___ . ___ . __ -____ ... _. __ _

--"t: ..... --:-._-;- ------___
..
,
NOTES
CONCLUSION
1 Mahmd, Mantiq 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
6
i
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.
cAbduh , Muhammad. Risalat al-TawhId. Caire: Nahdat
Misr, 1956.
Al-Islam '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. ,
cfsa 'l-HalabI, 1958.
cAbduh , Muhammad Muhammad IsmacIl. Al-Fikr.al-IslamI. Cairo:
Dar n.d.
Ab RIdah, 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 Cairo:
\
Dar al-Qalam, 1962.
----:
AI-KindI Faylasf al-cArab. al-M'aSsasah
al-Misriyyah, n.d.

..
MaCanI 'l-Fa1safah. Caire: 1947.
1
!
"
. 1
"-- !. ... --, --":::1 -
119
. '._ .. _. _L ________ .-..
(
, '
(
120
Al-AmidI, (AlI_ibn AbI cAlI ibn fI
4 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-CIlmiyyah,
1980.
Amin, Ahmad. Duha 'l-Islam. 3 vOl,s, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab
. ,
a 1-C Ar ab l , 19 6 9
Fajr al-Islam.
1969.
- C -
Dar al-Kitab al: Arabi,
Fayd al-Khatir. 8 vols. Cairo: al-Nahdah aI-
l
Misriyyah, 1949.
Yawrn al-Islm.
... c-
Cairo: Dar al-Ma arif, 1952.
Zuhr al-Islam. 4 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab

C -
al- 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.
AI-Falsafah al-QUr'aniyyah.
1947 .
.$
,
Al-TafkIr FarIdah Islamiyyah.

n.d.
Cairo: Dar Nahdat Misr,
,
Cairo: Dar al-Qalam,
C - C -
. AI-A sam, 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, cAbd al-Rahman. Madhahib al-Islam1yyln. 2 vols.
Belrut: Dar al-
c
llm, 1979.
()
L .. ..- -. ........
,
\
{:
1
121
, '
Madkhal Jadid ila 'l-Falsafah. Kuwait: Wakalat
,.
-c-
at, 1975.
Manahij al-Bahth al-
c
Ilml.
al-CArabiyyah, 1973.
Cairo: Dar al-Nahdah
,
ed. Mantiq Aristu. 3 vols. Cairo: Or al-Kutub
i i
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.
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
C
tazi1ah. Beirut: Mu'assasat 1979.
FakhrI, Majid. Qadat ,?l-Fikr: Ibn Rshd Qurtubah .
.
al-Kathllkiyyah, 1960.
Al-FarabI, Ab Nasr. Rasa'il FarabI. ",Haydarabad: Matba c at
.
c- 1
al-Ma arif,
Ghallab, Al-Tasawwuf al-Muqaran. Cairo: Nahdat
.
Misr, 1956 .
.
AI-Ghazzali, Ab Hamid. Tahafut al-Fa1asifah. Edited
introduction and commentary by Sulayman Dunya. Cairo:
al-Ha1abI, 1947.
o
. -:. ,---- -----'---'=-
..
1
t

1
c-
,.
122
c - C -
Mi yar a1- Ilm'fi Fann al-Mantiq. Eq. by
'"
- - - C - c-
al-Din Sabri and Abd al-Qadir Ma ruf a1-
1
Kurdl. Cairo: MatbaCat Kurdistan al-CIlmiyyah,
1329 A.H.
.
a
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.
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.
- c-
Caire: Dar arif, ,n.d.
Ibn Bajjah. Rasa'i1 al-I1ahiyyah. Edited with Introduction
by Majid FaKhr!. Beirut: Dar a'l-Nahar, 1968.
t 1
[,). J
Ibn Hanbal, Ahmad.' '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: n.d.
Ibn KathIr. TafsIr a1-
c
Az1rn. 6 vols. Beirut: Dar
" .
al"'Fikr, 1970.

1
Ibn Qayyim.
-c
a1-Mursalah. 1338 A.H. A1-Sawa
Ibn Rushd. Falsafat
I!2
n Beirut: Dar al'-Afaq al-
JadIdah, 1979.
-
bacd al-TabI
c
ah'.
'l
.
" . TalkhIs ma Edited w)ith introduction

by
c - -
Uthman -Amin . Cairo :. al-HalabI, 1958.
1

-.. -- ----
.
t
1
_ J
...
(
(
,
123
Ibn tayrniyyah.
c- c '
Dar' Ta arud al- Agl wa 'l-Nagl.
.
Ed. by
p
- - -
_ Rashad Salim .. Cairo: Dar al-Kutub, 1971.
Al-IklIl fI 'l-MutashabiH wa 'l-Ta'wIl. Cairo:
i'
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 Nagd Kalarn aI-
l
-C
ah wa 'l-Qadariyyah. 3 vols. n.p., n.d.
Naqd al-Mantiq. Ed. by Muhammad ibn cAbd aI-
l
Razzaq Hamzah and Sulayman ibn c Abd al-Rahman 'al-sanIC.
Cairo: MatbaCat al-Sunnah 1951 .
.
Kitab Il;MantiqiyyIn. Beirut: Dar
C
al-Ma rifah, n.d.
AI-Risalah al-Madaniyyah. Caire: Artsar al-Sunnah
al-Muhammadiyyah, 1946 .
.
.
c Abd al-Rahman Ahmad. AI-Mawaqif fI, c I1m al-Kalam.
c-
Beirut: Alarn al-Kutub, n.d.
c - - - -
Ishri, Jalal. al-Falsafah al-Islamiyyah. Cairo:
Dar al-Kitab, n.d.
Ab Bakr Muhammad. Al-Tacarruf li-Madhhab
Ahl Ed. by c Abd al-HalIm Mahmd and
Taha cAbd al-Bagi Surr. Cairo: Al-HalabI, 1960.
1
Kballaf, Al-Siyasah al-SharCiyyah. Cairo:
Dar al-Ansar, 1977.
Kitab al,Intisar. Beirut: al-KathulIkiyyah, 1957.
Mahmu
-d, cAbd '1 H
a - a ,lIn. Falsafau Ibn Tufayl wa
Cairo: Al-Anglo, n.d.
()
,
,d
, 1
t
1

-, ----------.;--------_ .. -
!
t

f
<
1
, .
c
124
\
Al-Islam wa Caire: Dar al-Kutub
HadIthah, 1966.
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
Caire: Dar al-Kutub al-HadIthah, n.d.
,. . ,,\
-----, ..
Mugaddimah fl'Mantig al-Tasawwuf.
. . . .
Edi ted together
- - .
with al-Ghazzali's al-Mungidh. AI-Anglo, 1952.
ed. AI-Tacarruf li Madhhab Ahl 'al-Tasawwuf li
!l-KalabadhI. Cairo: Maktabat al-HalabI, 1960
.
ed. Al-Tariq ila Allah aw Kitab al-Sidq li

'l-Kharraz. Dar al=Kutub
5rbba wa 'l-Islam. Cairo: Dar al-Jihad,
AI-Hamd li-Allah, HadhihI Hayati. Cairo: Dar' aI-
l
Macarif, 1976.
al-Qadir. AI-Falsafah
Cairo: Al-Macrifah, 1966-1967.
Mahrnd, cAbd a1-Qadtr. AI-Fikr al-IslamI wa '1-Fa1safat,al-
Mu
c
aridahfl Il-HadIth. 2 vols. Khartoum: Khartoum
uni;ersity Press, 1971.
ZakI Naj Ib. Na::ariyat al-Ma crifah, airo: Wizarat
al-Irshad al-QawmI, 1956.
C' - - c-
Al-Ma quI wa 'l-Lama quI. Beirut: Dar al-Shurq,
1978.
AI-ManfI, Mahmd Ab 'l-Fayd. Tahafut al-Falsafah c an Dark
al-aaqIgah al-Mutlaqah. Cairo: al-Nahdah, 1970.
,
o
"
'.'
J
---. --,.---- ... --1
1
, )
J
1
"
"
1
-
1:25
li69.
AI-MunasibI, AI-Harith ibn Asad. AI-CAql wa,Fahrn al-Qur'an.
Ed. al-QuwwatlI. Cairo: Dar a17Fikr,-i978.
AI-Mpnqjjid, Salah al-DIna Al-Islam wa 'l-CAql. Beirut:,Dar
al-JadId, 1974.
Muruwwah, Al-Nazcah al-Maddiyyah fI 'I-Falsafah al-
CArabiyyah 2 vols. Dar al-
, t' ,
FarabI,
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 Cairo:
- c-
Dar al-Ma arif, 1959.
cAbd al-Majld. AlCAql wa 'l-Sulk fI 'l-Binyah
al-Islamiyyah.
C -
Tunis: Matba at al-Janub, 1980.
Najjar, RamzI. Al-Falsafah al-CArabiyyah c abr al-Tarlkh.
Beirut: al-Afag al-JadIdah, 1977.
Najjar, FAM., 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.
AI-QurtubI, Muhammad ibn Ahmad aI-AnsarI. AI-Jami
c
li Ahkam
al-Qur'an. 20 vols. Cairo: Dar al-cArabI,
1967.
\
'.
,
___ _'------------Ilt:t:-'----------------------:
(

1
12,6
AI-Qushayri, cAbd ibn Hawazin,. AI-Risalah al-
Qushayriyyah fI c Ilm Cairo; Dar al-Kutub
al-CArabiyyah, 1912.
AI-Raghib al-ISfahanI, Husayn ibn Muhammad. AI-Mufradat fi
.
GharIb' al-Qur'an. Ed. by Muhammad
Eeirut:
- C
Dar al-Ma rifah, n.d. -
- - c - c
AI-Rawi, Abd al-Sattar. Al- Aqi wa 'I-Hurriyyah. Beirut:

C
AI-Mu'assasah al- Arabiyyah, 1980.
Rosenthal, M. and YudIn R., eds.
-C
Al-Mawsu ah .
by SamIr Karam. Be1rut_:, Dar al-TalICah,
1974 .
. . Al-$abunI, Muhammad cALI.
-
Mukhtasar 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.
\
Damascus Qn,iversity Press, 1964.
2 vols. Damascus:
AI-MuCjam a1-FalsafJ. 2 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab
al-LubnanI, 1978.
- - "c ,
Tarikh al-Falsafah al- 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\,..-_
, ================-=-=--:::-.
----- ----.
li
1
t
;
(
\
127
(Introduction la thologie Musulmane.) By Louis
Gardet et G. 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
al-Hadith.
- -c
Beirut: Dar al-Tali ah, 1978 .

Al-SuyutI, Jalal al-Dln. Sawn al-Mantiq wa 'l-Kalam can 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 .
. Baghdad: Dar al-NadhIr, n.d.
Al-TurkI; CAbd Allah ibn,cAbd al-Muhsin. Asbab Ikhtilaf al-
.
Fuqaha'. Riyadh: Maktabat' 1977.
Al-TsI, CAbd Allah ibn cAlI al-Sarraj. Kitab al-Luma
co
fI 0
' 'V '
'l-Tasawwuf . Ed. and l'rans. by R.A. Nicholson.
Leyden: E.J. Brill;, 1914.
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

f
,
1
1
J
. ,
-
o
(,
128
Zarou, K.D. fi '1-Sham fI '1-Qarnayn
al-Awwal wa '1-ThanI li 'l-Hijrah. Beirut: Dar
,al-Afag al-JadIdah, 1971.
Zaydan, Mahmd. Manahij
1977:
al-da1safI.
1
Alexandria:
, ,
ZInah, Husna. 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 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 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. Welling-
i
borough, Northamptonshire: Thorsons Publishers
Lrnited, 1976 .
Canfie1d, John V. and Franklin H. qonnell, Jr. Readings in
The Theory of Knowledge. New York: Meredith Publish-
ing Company, 1964.
,
Chittiek,.W.C. The Sufi Doctrine of Rumi: An Introduction.
Offset Press Ine., n.d.
"
. -.
l
,

1
1
1
1
i
l,
o
.h
,
c
130
Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic. London: The Mac-
Millan Company, 1970.
F.M. From Religion Philosophy. Atlantic
Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1980.
Descartes, R. Philosophical Essays. Trans. by L.J. Lafleur.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merri1 Educational PUblishing,
1977.
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-

New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964.
1
\
Frost, S.E. Basic Teachin9:s of the Grea{ PhilosoEhers.
New York: Doubleday & Company" Inc., 1962.
Gibb, Moharnmedanism. New Oxford University
Press, 1962.
Goldziher, l. Introduction to Is1amic Theol09:Y and Law.
Trans. by Andras and Ruth Hamori. Princeton, New
Jersey: Uniyersity Press, 1981.
Griffiths, A. Phi1lips, ed. Know1edge and Belief. London:
Oxford University Press, 1967. /
Gusdorf, G. Trait de Mtaphysique. Paris: Colin, 1956.
Haack, Susan. Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1978.
(
',I rI
131
! Hammond, Robert. The Philosophy of Alfarabi and i ts Infl\l-
ence on Medieval Thought. New York: The Hobson
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
New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1, Inc., 1967.
Ibn Rushd. Averroes on the Harmony of Religion 'and Philosophy.
Trans1ated"and supplemented with introduction and
notes by G.J. Hourani. London: Luzac and Company,
1961.
,
,
Averroes' Tahafut al-Tahafut. 2 vols. 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.
} )
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1, Inc.,
1970.
E.W. An Arabic-English Lexicon. 8 vls. Beirut:
Librairie du Liban, 1968.
Macdonald, D.B. Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence
, ..

1
.., .. 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 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
Books, 1975.
New York: Schocken
Parrinder, Geoffrey. Reli ions.
\
New York: Oxford University Press,
Pears, D.F., ed. The Nature of Metaphysics. London: Mac-
Millan, 1965.
, /

Randall, Herman and Justus Buchler. Philosophy: An Intro-
duction. New York: Barnes & Noble, n.d.
Runes, Dagobert D. et. al. Dictionary of Philosophy.
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 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:
uni:ersity Press, 1962.
\
Islamic Revelation in the Modern World.
Edinburgh '
Wensinck, A.J. and Mensing, J.P. Concordance et Indices de
la Tradition Musulmane. 7 vols. Leiden: E.J .. ,srill,
1943.
Wensinck, A.J. The Muslim Creed. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1932.
Williams, J.A. Islam. New York: George Braziller, 1962.
- ,- -
,
,
'1
J
J
_
________
- ------
;
(
134
Articles
- '- ccc
Abu Ridah, Muhammad 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. (Feb. 1975),
pp. 65-87.
c - c - -
Al- Aqqad, Abbas AI-Ruhaniyyah bayn al-Anbiya'
'l-Thalathah. 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) .
'Muhammad. AI-Din wa Al-Risa1ah,
.
Vol. 9, No. 406 (1941), pp. 530-533.
- c c -
cAl-Jami ah wa '1- Aqidah. Al-Azhar, Vol. 10
(1939), pp. 220-222.
cLi-Madha Tafalsafa 'l-Insan.
No. 616 Cl .. 945), pp. 410-412.
1
Al-Risalah, Vol. 13,
Busoo1, Assad N. The Development of Taha Husayn's Islamic
.,
Thought. The Muslim World, Vol. 68 (Jan. 1978),
pp. 259-284.

Cook, M.A. cThe Origin of Ka1am. Vol. 42 (1980),
pp. 32-43.
,
\
1
!
t .
r
(
, "
135
\
Fakhry, Maj id. The 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.
,.
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. 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.
\ .- ,
Azhar, Vol. 48 '1976), pp. 296-304.
Al-
-
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.
The System of Islamic in Detail.
IslQmic Studies, Vol. 12 (1973), pp. 193-211, 231-260.
.,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. 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
Al-Risa1ah, Vol. 13, No, 650 (Dec. 1945), pp. 1367-
1370.
al-Sufiyyah al-Balha' wa 'l-Maddiyyah
al-Samma'. Al-Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 620 (May 1945),
pp. 549-552.
c - - - -
I jaz al-Qur'an 'l-Maqayis a1-Bashariyyah.
Al-Risa1ah, Vol. 13, No. 632 (August 1945), pp.
862-863.
____ o.
AI-Mustaqarr al-
C
Aq1I 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
Sayyid Qutb. AI-Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 617
(April 1945), pp. 452-455.
Khan, clrfan Ahmad. On Problems of Islamic Research in
Philosophy. Islarnic Thought, Vol. 4

pp. 40-46.
.
Islamic Method. Islamic Vol. 6
(1961), pp.' 1-13.
..
..

j
1
1
)
. f
1
1
"
137
Muhibb al-DIn: Manhaj al-lslamiyyah
, 0 itP
al-Ila. Al-Azhar, Vol. 51 (Bec. 1978), pp. 96-
106:
Khoury, N.A. and Baaklini, A.l. Muhammad
The Muslim'World, Vol. 69 (Jan. 1979), pp. 42-52. .,.
Laoust, H. Ibn Taymiyyah. The 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.
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. (Nov. 1976),
pp. 1321-13'31.
cAl-Islam wa TanzIm al-Mujtama
c
.
lI;' .
Al-Azhar, Vol.
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),.'
pp. 733 -7 3 5
Wa-Innahu la-Kitabun cAzIz. Al-Azhar, Vol. 48
---""-t.
(Sept. 1976) 1 pp. 897-903. . ,
cAl-ShauIcah al-Islamiyyah fI Maj lis a1-Sh'a cb '.
'.
A1:-Azhar, Vol. ,48 : (Feb: 1976), pp. -128-138.
:;
. i
J
1
1
.. )
1
(
, 'C
t
'"
138
\
Makdisi, G.
C - C
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-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-Risalah, Vol. 12, No. 594
(Nov. 1944), pp. 1021-1023.
cShacb Misr. Al-Risalah, Vol. 12, No. 596
(Dec. 1944), pp. 1061-1063.
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
Mia,
Pessagno, ,J. Intellect and Religious Assent.
,
The Muslim World! Vol. 69 (19791, pp .. 18-27.
/1
Abdul Jalrl. The Concept of TauhId or Unit y.
)
Studies in Islam, Vol. 16, No. 2 (April 1979), !
f
.
pp. 64-67-.
MiftaI;, cAbd Rabbih. Al-Islam wa 'l-fl!Aql. Al,-Azhar,
Vol. 6 (1935), pp. 64-67.
"
Moinul Haq, S. Origin and Growth of Sufism.
Journal of the pakistani Historical Society,
Vol. 21, No. 2 (April 1973), pp. 79-108.
MuIJarak, Zakl.
- c -
Al-Islam bayn al- Aql wa 'l-Ruh. Al-
.
"
Risalah, Vol. 12, No. (Jan.'1944), pp. 67-68
.
__ b __ ,_"
1
1

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. 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.
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 al-Qur an. -.
<,1
AI-Risalah, Vol. 13, No. 611 (March 1945), pp. 278-
281.
!l-TaswIr al-Fanni wa '1-9AqIdah fi 'I-Qur
'
an.
Vol. 13, No. 645 (Nov. 1945), pp.

al-FannI fI 'l-Qur'an. AI-Risalah,
Vol. 13, No. 601 (Jan. 1945), pp. 43-45.
Rahbar, Daud. Relation of Mus1irn to,the Qurlan.
The Mus1im World, Vol. 51 (Jan. 1961), pp. 44-49.
Rida, Muhammad RashId. AI-Murshidn wa 'l-Murabbun aw al-
..
Mutasawwifah wa 'l-Sufiyyn. Al-Manar, Vol. 6
(1897/8), pp. 722-730.
",
! /
(
1
1
. .
140
...,
Sabri, Muhammad. CIlalGal-Mujtamac al-Misri, AI-Risalah,
.
Vol. 13, No. 605 (Feb. 1945), p. 124.
cAbd al-Majld.
c -
Raf al-Tanaqud: al-Jadal
. .
al-SufI wa Qtmat al-cAlam Etudes
.

Philosophiques et Littraires, Vol. 3 (1978),
pp. 105-115.
Salim, Ahmad Musa. AI-Nazar al-CAqlI baytt al-Islam wa,
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 - C - -c - -
Shalabi, Abd al-Jalil. Muhimmat ?l-Da iyah al-Islami wa
- 0 c -
Takwinuh al- Ilmi. Al-Azhar, Vol. 49 (1977),
pp. 254-259.
Religious Fredom in Egypt. The Moslem World,
Vol. 20 (1930), pp. 344-351.
al-Tantawi, cAlI.,
c - c c-
bayn a1- Ag1 wa '1 Atifah.
Al-Risalah"vo1. 13, No. '648 (Dec. 1945), pp. 1313-
1315".
, A1-
'"--
Risalah, Vol. 12, No. 597 (Dec. 1944), p. 2000.
Tuqan,' QadrI Hafiz .. Al-CAql fI 'l-Qur'an wa 'l-HadIth.
. . ,
13, NQ. 601 (Jan. 1945), pp.
55-56.
WajdI, Muhammad FarId. Athar fI TahrIr al-Fikr,
. ,
a1-InsanI. A1-Azpar, Vol. 8 (193,7), pp.
a
.,--------,-- .. -- -_ .. _. _ .. -
_____ ._. ____ 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.
,
.....
'.
---- ~ - ~ - - - - - -" ---'-" ----_. ~ - - - _ . _ - - -