Abdal Hakim Murad - The Cambridge Companion to Islamic Theology

216 Ayman Shihadeh
21. Razı, Mat _
alib, i, p.233.
22. See also Averroes, Faith and Reason: Averroes’ Exposition of Religious
Arguments [Al-Kashf ‘an manahij al-adilla fı ‘aqa’id al-milla], tr.
I. Najjar (Oxford, 2001), p. 33, who distinguishes between the argument
from design (ikhtira‘) and the argument from providence (‘inaya).
23. Razı, Mat _
alib, i, p.234.
24. Razı, Asrar al-tanzıl wa-anwar al-ta’wıl, ed. M. Muh _
ammad et al.
(Baghdad, 1985), p. 151.
25. Razı, Mat _
alib, i, pp.218–24.
26. Ibid., i, pp. 224–5. OnAbu Bakral-Razı’s notion of God, see Michael
E. Marmura, ‘‘The Islamic philosophers’ conception of Islam’’, in
R. Hovannisian (ed.), Islam’s Understanding of Itself (Malibu, 1981),
pp. 87–102.
27. Razı, Asrar, p.151; cf.Mat _
alib, i, p.216.
28. On this notion, see Shihadeh, Teleological Ethics, pp.142ff.
29. Razı (Mat _
alib, i, p.239) also recognises the importance of cumulating
arguments more generally for the existence of God. Even if each
separately does not provide certainty, their cumulative force may
achieve this. For a recent defence of such a strategy, see Richard
Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford, 1991), pp. 13–15.
30. Razı, Mat _
alib, i, pp.216, 236.
31. ‘‘H _
uduth’’ is rendered as either ‘‘generation’’ or ‘‘temporal origination’’,
depending on context.
32. On proofs for the existence of accidents, see Davidson, Proofs, pp.180ff.
33. ‘Abd al-Jabbar, al-Majmu‘ fi’l-muh _
ıt _
bi’l-taklıf, ed. J. Houben, 2 vols.
(Beirut, 1965), i, pp.28–67; Malah _
imı, Mu‘tamad, pp.84–154; Davidson,
Proofs, p.140.
34. Averroes, Faith and Reason, pp.25–6; cf. Davidson, Proofs, pp.143–4.
35. Juwaynı, Shamil, pp.215ff., and Guide, p.15; Davidson, Proofs,
pp. 143–6.
36. See Davidson, Proofs, pp.87ff., 117ff.
37. Malah _
imı, Mu‘tamad, pp.151–2.
38. Razı, Mat _
alib, Book 4; Muammer Iskenderoglu, Fakhr al-Dın al-Razı
and Thomas Aquinas on the Question of the Eternity of the World (Brill,
2002), pp. 69ff. In his earlier works, Razı defends the doctrine of creation
ex nihilo.
39. Razı, Mat _
alib, i, p.207. This view was also taken by Ghazalı, al-Iqtis _
ad
fi’l-i‘tiqad, ed. Ibrahim Agah Çubukçu and Huseyin Atay (Ankara, 1962),
pp. 25–6.
40. Cf. ‘Abd al-Jabbar, Majmu‘, i, pp.68–93. The analogy is summarised by
Malah _
imı (Mu‘tamad, pp.172–4) and Razı (Mat _
alib, i, pp.210–12), both
of whom reject it.
41. On analogy in kalam cf. Ayman Shihadeh, ‘‘From al-Ghazalı to
al-Razı: 6th/12th century developments in Muslim philosophical
theology’’, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 15 (2005), pp. 141–79,
pp. 165ff.
42. On these forms of argument, see Shihadeh, ‘‘From al-Ghazalı to
al-Razı’’, pp. 165–7; Josef van Ess, ‘‘The logical structure of Islamic
Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008