Permalink

Reason In Islam


By Ali Eteraz
Posted on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 08:57:13 AM EST
Tags: razi, history, islam (all tags)

Most people thinking about Islam only consider three possible views on how to understand Reason:

1 - There is a harmony between revelation and reason (Ibn Rushd/Mu'tazilite)

2 - Reason is important but does not provide all the answers and requires oversight by revelation (Ghazali/Ashari)

3 - Reason is overrated and revelation is best understood by way of Love (Rumi/Sufi)

But there is a fourth strain that Islam has produced and we need to acknowledge it because there have been, are, and will be Muslims who will adopt this view:

Since reason is our most precious gift from Allah, we should do nothing to reduce its status or degrade it. Since reason should govern our conduct, we should allow nothing to govern it. Since reason is the sovereign over all human facilities, it should not be made subject to any other faculty.

Razi, from Kitab al Muluki h/t 2000 AH

In other words, his position is of pure rationalism. He remains a very important but extremely marginalized thinker within Islamic History. It reveals quite a lot about the intellectual climates that today most Muslims barely regard him as Muslim whereas a thousand years ago he was studying under one of the foremost authorities on the Quran (Tabari, whose exegesis of the Quran is still authoritative).

By the way, Razi also discovered coffee (as well as anesthesia), and you'll note that despite being a pure rationalist he was quite steeped in ethical theory, which rebuts the primary Ashari argument against pure rationalists (namely, that if you give primacy to reason you do not have morals):

It is thought that the great Persian philosopher-physician Razi (ca. 800 AD) might have been the first scholar to mention the plant, calling it bunchum. Razi is most famous for discovering that, if you get someone drunk enough, you can perform minor surgery on him with a minimum of fuss. Actually Razi was an immensely important scientist whose contributions to modern medicine cannot be overestimated, his work far outstripping that of his European contemporaries; he penned the first systematic works on allergies and immunology, on pharmaceutical equipment and tinctures, and on the menstrual cycle, among many other topics. In fact, after reviewing his achievements, I furiously wonder why it is that our modern doctors take a Hippocratic Oath and not a Razi Oath. Razi was also one of the earliest proponents of objective ethics in the practice of medicine. 

 

< The Other Iran Conference | Creating A Left Narrative On Iran Pt. 1 >

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:

Tags: razi, history, islam (all tags) :: Add Tags to this Story
Display: Sort:

Different Tabari...(none / 0) (#1)
by dawood on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 10:25:52 AM EST

It is not the same Tabari we Sunni's quote for Tafsir and other things. Thjat is Abu Ja'far Muhammad al-Tabari, and not Ali ibn Sahl al-Tabari, who was a medical guy.

His thoughts are definitely interesting though!



trumped(none / 0) (#2)
by Ali Eteraz on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 10:32:35 AM EST

thank you for the correction

two tabaris; there are also three different razis. 



[ Parent ]
Yup(none / 0) (#3)
by dawood on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 11:45:49 AM EST

Hence why trying to figure out who is who is a pain in the... especially when people are known by the names of towns or areas (al-tabari=tabaristan, al-razi=rayy, al-balkhi=balkh etc.)

No wonder people who deal with hadith and biographies ('ilm al-rijal etc.) are so geeky! 



[ Parent ]






Couple of comments here(none / 0) (#4)
by mohammadfadel on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 10:52:06 PM EST

Abu Bakr al-Razi was apparently a deist who rejected all revealed religions, so accordingly, one can hardly use him to build a theory of reason in Islam.  One can cite him for the proposition that Muslims have rejected Islam, but one can hardly expect his views to influence committed Muslims.

Finally, your description of the Ash'ari position is off the mark.  Both the Ash'aris and the Mu'tazalis had essentially the same position regarding reason: where reason provided an answer, it had to be true.  They simply disagreed as to whether reason could answer certain questions. 

Mohammad



Why not?(none / 0) (#5)
by OmarG on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:48:29 PM EST
Salam Mohammed,

>>but one can hardly expect his views to influence committed Muslims.

Why not? I'm a committed Muslim and I (and many others) are influenced by even non-Muslim thinkers, activists and systems. What maxim are you positing from this?

[ Parent ]

Why not Abu Bakr al-Razi?(none / 0) (#6)
by mohammadfadel on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 07:46:16 AM EST

Wa alaikum al-salam,

 I assume that a committed Muslim will not be influenced by non-theistic theologians on a central issue such as prophecy.  This is not to say that he was not an interesting fellow, nor that his arguments against prophecy can be ignored, just that his criticisms of prophecy are categorical, and therefore, one cannot accept his theory of prophecy and remain a Muslim, since a core theological doctrine in Islam is that God sends prophets.

In general, he appears to have argued that prophecy is either redundant -- in that it cannot disclose knowledge that is not already known rationally -- or it is destructive and therefore false, because it leads to conflict among communities who are led by different prophets.  I say this appears to be his argument because we have it second hand.  It is possible that he was not quite so strident in his rejection of prophecy, but these are the positions ascribed to him by the tradition. 

Accordingly, it is hard to consider Razi as being even a heretic, since he apparently rejected Islam -- as well as all other claims of revelation -- as being built on a claim -- revelation -- which is inherently false.  In this respect, he goes well beyond the "heretical" Muslim philosophers such as Avicenna, al-Farabi and Ibn Rushd, all of whom affirmed the truth of revelation but argued that philosophy controlled the interpretation of revelation. 

So, I take your point about being influenced by non-Muslims, and I am the first to welcome such influence, but I believe that only those elements of non-Muslim thought that is compatible with the basic theological commitments of Muslims will have any meaningful impact on Muslims' views.

 Was-salam,

Mohammad



[ Parent ]







Display: Sort: