The three aims of ASIP&T (fellowship, training scholars, and verification & renewal) are meant to address five imperatives that arise from the contemporary state of scholarship in Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Before questions of the nature of consciousness or spiritual anthropology can be effectively addressed, certain questions of ultimate and metaphysical significance must be dealt with. This is the domain of Islamic Philosophy and Theology. However, in the modern age there is a paucity of active, well-trained, and capable scholars. The few scholars who devote themselves to this field are spread far and wide. In North America there are several highly competent and well-trained scholars of Islamic Philosophy and Theology. However, they do not have sufficient opportunities to connect and share their research, let alone work collaboratively. All this leads to five imperatives to which ASIP&T will respond.
The Five Imperatives:
- Ecumenical fellowship and collaboration
- Epistemological Transparency
- Fully Trained Scholars with Epistemological Commitments
- Verification (taḥqīq)
- Renewal (tajdīd)
Ecumenical Fellowship and Collaboration
The first and broadest aim of ASIP&T is to produce a fellowship of scholars working on Islamic Theology and Philosophy from diverse perspectives, methods, and aims. We aim to promote fellowship between committed Muslim theologians/philosophers (broadly defined) who are willing to examine faith through a rigorous philosophical (rationalist) lens as well as engage other philosophical systems via the scrutiny of Islamic philosophical and theological frameworks.
However, since there are non-Muslim scholars who also contribute to this general aim of examining Islamic faith through a philosophical lens in their scholarship on Islamic Philosophy and Theology, the American Society of Islamic Philosophy is open to all scholars and aspiring scholars who are interested in engaging with and applying the Islamic theological and philosophical tradition. Our annual conference will is the main venue for this sort of ecumenical fellowship. This rich diversity of ideas and engagement is crucial to strengthening our more particular goals discussed below, as no tradition stays vibrant in a self-contained vacuum.
Unlike many academic institutions, which often assumes secularity as objectivity and faith-commitment as subjectivity, ASIP&T will aim to break down the insider-outsider divide which often stunts vibrant philosophical inquiry and intellectual exchange. ASIP&T is an organization aimed at promoting honest intellectual inquiry rather than an unexamined allegiance to a revealed text, national constitution, academic discipline, or inherited secular or religious philosophy. ASIP&T focuses on rational inquiry which does not assume a necessary conflict with spiritual and religious claims; having a rationalist platform does not exclude anyone as long as they are willing to identify their own definitions of rationalism and contrast them with others should they differ. This ecumenical enquiry is not unfounded in the Islamic tradition, where Maimonides could write and engage with Kalam or Catholic scholars in the Ottoman empire could be experts in Hanafi law, all the while engaging with Islam as a living system and not a mere specimen under the microscope. General membership, therefore, is open to all who are willing to engage rigorously with the Islamic philosophical, intellectual, and theological tradition with epistemological transparency.
Epistemological Transparency and Commitment
An Epistemology is a philosophy of knowing, a theory of how truth is known. Most importantly, it defines the channels through which sound knowledge may be obtained and the relationship between these channels. For example, consider the following Big Questions: What are the limits of what the mind or intellect can know? What can only be known through Divine revelation? What are the limits of empirical observation? These questions are epistemological at their core; to answer them one must determine whether or not rational, empirical, or Divinely revealed knowledge are legitimate categories or channels of knowledge and whether or not these channels can produce certainty rather than just probable knowledge. Furthermore, if one affirms several channels, then one must establish which channel is superior especially when they may lead to conflicting information. Empirical observation may indicate that humans are blobs of protoplasm, but rational and Divinely revealed knowledge may indicate a non-material soul. Here the concept of modalities is useful; a soul is empirically possible (not necessary), but according to Divine revelation it necessarily exists. Some philosophers too argue that the existence of the soul is rationally necessary as sentience indicates it. (I think/perceive, therefor the soul exists).
But what if knowledge from each channel leads to differing conclusions? Empirical observation—from a Newtonian rather than a quantum perspective—indicates that fire causes cotton to burn, but rational proofs indicate an occasionalist world view, where fire has a high probability of being accompanied by burning though there is no necessary connection between the two. This occasionalism lays open the possibility of the miracles mentioned in Divine revelation being explainable as Divine interventions in a statistically predictable pattern that is not, however, absolute and does not necessitate that the expected effects must always follow the usual causes (i.e., God does as He pleases).
Furthermore, the so-called conflict between science and religion, like the alleged conflict between reason and revelation, depends on one’s approach to these channels, how they are defined, and which are included. Here is where epistemological transparency is necessary in order to avoid the disagreements that result from the lack of coordinating terminology and agreed upon epistemological method. Intra-Muslim philosophical differences that are laid bare in our ecumenical fellowship program (i.e. conferences) cannot be adequately resolved without sustained discussion of the epistemological foundations of, say, an Isma‘ili interpretation of a Quranic verse and a Sunni interpretation. Likewise, many of the claims of the New Atheism movement are rooted in the preference for inductive knowledge over deductive knowledge, the latter of which it reduces to mere formal logic rather than being a means of producing new knowledge. This move effectively allows them to accept the possibility that matter spontaneously came into existence without a cause or affirm the eternality of the universe, concepts that are rationally absurd via the deductive reasoning of traditional Islamic Theology and Philosophy. In contrast, most Muslim epistemologies (Sunni, Shi‘i, Mu‘tazili) are the inverse of the New Atheist movement; they prioritize deductive over inductive reasoning, arguing thereby that the universe necessarily had a beginning and therefore requires a timeless and transcendent cause (i.e., God). If we disagree concerning the roots of our arguments, nothing conclusive comes from the branches, and controversy and discord persist. We must therefore declare our epistemologies, study them well, and, if they are sound, remain fully and openly committed to them in all of our claims.
Fully Trained Scholars with Epistemological Commitments
While epistemological transparency requires the study of competing epistemologies, ASIP&T also has a more specifically defined religious identity as an Islamic institution devoted to the continued relevance of Islam in the contemporary world. This entails that our primary affiliation and epistemological commitment is to a traditional Sunni Kalam Theology which declares Rational, Empirical, and Divinely revealed (RED) channels to be capable of producing both certain and probable knowledge. This method also offers a defined position on the ranks and relationships between the RED channels and what to do when there is apparent conflict between the information derived through each (e.g., reason and revelation).
An epistemology, like any other system, entails that those who adopt it accept its claims (e.g., “Rationality can lead to certain knowledge,” “Empirical knowledge is subordinate to rational knowledge,” etc.). Therefore, before going any further, we must not merely apply an inherited epistemology, but we must study it, test it, and ensure that it is sound.
This is where our Asynchronous Digital Annotation working groups enter the discussion. We will have, in addition to the annual conference, dedicated working groups to keep the conversations going between the conferences. This will be carried out in three stages of training in which all working group members will partake throughout the first three-year period. Stage one is Epistemological Foundations, where the definition and scope of Rational, Empirical, and Divinely Revealed knowledge are explored. Stage two focuses on ensuring proper understanding and application of the Tools of Knowledge, namely, what we might call the Islamic Trivium: language (morphology, syntax, etymology, rhetoric), Rational Argumentation (logic, dialectic), and Root Principles (of Jurisprudence, Theology, and Spirituality). Stage three focuses on the application of Epistemological Foundations and the Tools of Knowledge to the core Big Questions on which we are focusing. Although we will be actively discussing these problems, challenges, and questions throughout the first and second years, the third year will assume that all working group participants have reached a masterful level of applying the foundational epistemology and rationalist tools of Islamic Theology and Philosophy as well as a strong grounding in the Western tradition.
Verification (taḥqīq) Based on RED Epistemology
Vibrant and sustained discussions of Islamic Philosophy and Theology on a broad, inclusive, and ecumenical platform help ensure that scholars avoid stagnation and become aware of the gaps in their knowledge and understanding. Innovation often flourishes when challenging and surprising ideas are exchanged freely. To avoid the pitfalls of “definition disagreement” and “deep disagreement,”[1] we must lay bare our foundational assumptions and epistemologies and work our way up from there. That is, we must have epistemological commitments, such as ASIP&T’s commitment to traditional Islamic Theology’s RED epistemology.
But in order for this epistemology to be relevant in a world that denies some of its basic assumptions, we require a critical mass of fully trained experts who test and apply it. This testing and verifying, called taḥqīq, is the fourth imperative that drives ASIP&T’s activities.
Taḥqīq is a form of scholarly effort that entails proving a particular position taken by scholars of the sacred sciences like theology or law, or even a position argued in the instrumental sciences like grammar, logic, or debate. Contrary to popular 19th-century caricaturized Orientalist portrayals of Islamic civilization’s intellectual decline, taḥqīq is one of several forms of independent scholarly reasoning (ijtihad) that continues into the modern day. Taḥqīq is, in a sense, the verifying and justification of a particular claim aimed at those who share the same epistemology. This is an extremely important practice with regard to addressing concerns within Muslim communities. However, effective taḥqīq necessarily rests on previous claims being established against an opposing opinion from outside one’s epistemological affiliations. That is to say, against atheistic philosophers, one must first prove the temporality of the universe, its contingency on a timeless creator, etc. via purely rational proofs. This can be called burhan (certain proof). Therefore, there is a crucial need for engaging interlocutors from both outside and inside one’s epistemological framework.
Our first priority will be the scholarly verification of traditional Islamic Theology and Philosophy’s epistemological foundations followed by its scholarly tools (logic, dialectic, rhetoric), and then the Big Questions. Below is an example of some of the questions whose verification (taḥqīq) we will focus on:
- Are traditional Islamic Theology and Philosophy’s epistemological foundations (rational, empirical, divine revelation) sound?
- Do syllogistic logic and Islamic dialectics still have continued relevance and effectiveness in taḥqīq and tajdīd?
- Are the proofs for God’s existence and transcendence rationally verifiable? Do their challenges hold any weight?
Renewal (tajdīd)
A critical mass of evenly and fully trained scholars capable of carrying out scholarly verification (taḥqīq) at the level of theoretical and applied epistemology, in conversation with each other and the broader scholarly community, is in itself a dire need whose realization would be a hugely impactful accomplishment. However, the revival and renewal of religion’s contemporary relevance cannot happen in the ivory towers or in some corner of the mosque alone; it must be shared from the pulpit and minbar, on paper and on the screen, in the classroom and on the street. Renewal starts from scholarly effort and manifests when shared across various mediums in forms that are appropriate for each audience. Here, connecting to education, consulting in the development of curricula, community outreach, and various online media forums are crucial. The term tajdīd (renewal) is a verbal noun derived from the transitive verb “to renew.” A transitive verb is not merely an action; it is an action that acts upon an object. What is the object of renewal? Ultimately it is the renewal of the human being’s understanding of Islamic belief and practice, which leads to the renewal of society through religion’s continued relevance in the spiritual and social domains. It is the domain where verified knowledge is put into action, in our case, via conferences, collaboration, and publications.