Hamdard Islamicus 81 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

RETHINKING ISLAMIC INTELLECTUALISM
MOHSIN AL-MULK’S ANALYSIS OF

ISLAMIC EPISTEMOLOGY

DR. ABDUL KHALIQ ABOYA
Assistant Professor,

Department of Philosophy,
University of Karachi, Karachi-75270,

Pakistan.
email: akaboya@uok.edu.pk

Introduction

Mohsin al-Mulk is among those Muslim intellectuals of the

subcontinent who have shown keen interest in reviving the intellectual

tradition of Islam by exploring the intellectual dimensions in the context

of the epistemic framework of Islam. In this connection he stresses upon

the need to draw compatibility between mÉ‘qËl (rational) and manqËl

(narrated traditional) in the perspective of Islamic theology. He tends to

suggest that in order to attain the said objective one should develop an

interpretive approach which may help one to represent those meanings

of various concepts/terms which the revealed text intends to convey. He

is of the view that such a stance will provide an impetus to develop one’s

understanding in accord with the will of God and help one bridge the gulf

between reason and tradition, the two essential sources of Islamic

epistemology. Mohsin al-Mulk tends to counter all such prevalent views

which attempt to show incompatibility between the rational and traditional

which may compel the Muslims to accept the traditional knowledge

uncritically. He further laments that some scholars undermine the

significance of interpretive/rational understanding in matters pertaining to

religion on the pretext that it may distract one from the truth that emerged

in the tradition.1 He attributes such a misinterpretation to the ill-conceived

relation between rational and religious sciences by the so-called

traditionalists.



Hamdard Islamicus 82 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

Significance of Traditional and Rational Sciences

In order to defuse controversy between rational and religious sciences

Mohsin al-Mulk aptly refers to al-GhazÉlÊ’s pioneering work Revival of

Religious Learning in which the author highlights the said issue in this

way:

“Some think that science is opposed to religion. This is not at all

correct. Such a man sets up one learning of Sharʑat against another.

The reason is his failure to co-ordinate the two. As a result such

people go out of religion. Such a man is just like a blind man who

stumbles down against the furnitures of the house and says: Why

has this furnitures been kept in the path way? The house owner

says: They are in their proper places. It is your blindness which is

responsible for your stumbling. This is also the case with one who

thinks that science is opposed to religion”.2

To substantiate his claim further Mohsin al-Mulk refers to the Qur’Én

which emphasizes at so many occasions, God’s encouraging remarks for

those who are eager to develop profound understanding of the Qur’Én

as well as other worldly affairs with the help of reason instead of swaying

with false assumption based upon profanation and alike. Given this fact

in light, this rational attitude also helps one to explore the meanings of the

revealed text in accord to one’s ontological position which supersedes all

other human capacities. In other words, the nature of revealed knowledge

is such that it can be grasped and shared by different individuals in

similar ways which reflects its objectivity and justifies the existence of

a faculty called ‘aql (reason) and its significance in the discernment of

truth and falsehood.3 To elaborate his point further he refers to the

Qur’Én:

“Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back

to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out.” (Al-Qur’Én,

LXVII:4).

According to Mohsin al-Mulk and some other commentators of the

Qur’Én, the said verse manifests God’s assurance for those who observe

and experience the minutest details of the external world in the best



Hamdard Islamicus 83 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

possible way. This may lead one to penetrate beyond the veil of appearance

and one is likely to acknowledge and appreciate its perfection, beauty

and order. As the region of inquiry is so vast and stretches beyond one’s

knowledge that one’s eyes, aided with the most powerful telescope, will

confess oneself defeated in trying to make a way into the ultimate

mysteries. One shall find no defect in Allah’s creation: it is one’s own

powers that shall fail to go beyond a certain extent. For there are some

hidden aspects in God’s creation and man is endowed with the power to

explore them. Man’s recognition of a rational faculty and its purpose is

the first step in the sphere of epistemological inquiry. To make his point

more vivid, Mohsin al-Mulk has differentiated between ulËm-i ‘aqlÊ

(rational sciences) and ulËm-i dÊnÊ (religious sciences). He claims that

the former can be categorized into two groups as they can be known

through reason. One is necessary and badÊhÊ (axiomatic) which are

certain and understandable without reasoning or burhÉn (demonstration).

The other one is naÐrÊ (theoretical knowledge) and kasbÊ (acquisitive

knowledge) attainable through reasoning. While the latter is revealed by

God through His prophets ( ) to mankind concerning one’s ‘aqÉ’id

(beliefs) or a‘mÉl (practices). Here Mohsin al-Mulk seems to draw an

analogy between Syed Ahmed’s distinction between word of God and

work of God and his distinction between religious sciences and rational

sciences. In fact he is interested in showing that the word of God

ensures the possibility of knowledge in the sphere of religion and one’s

rational faculty helps one to acquire knowledge pertaining to worldly

affairs. Hence the use of reason in worldly affairs as well as in religious

affairs is complementary rather than contradictory, as there is an intimate

relation between the two.4 He suggests that in order to develop a better

understanding of faith one must explore a relation between religious and

rational sciences which may lead one to appreciate the role of reason in

religious understanding.5 He further consolidates his claim by referring

to the following lines of the prominent Muslim thinker, GhazÉlÊ, who

states:

“This [Religious] knowledge is acquired by blind faith in the words

of the prophets ( ). It can be earned after studying the Qur’’Én

and Sunnah of the Prophet (œ) or hearing them for salvation of

soul, even though knowledge concerning intellect is necessary, it is



Hamdard Islamicus 84 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

not singly sufficient. As for health of body, some measures are

necessary, but they are not alone sufficient without their actual

application. Special methods of medicines for cure should be learnt

from the physicians. Only intellect is not sufficient. He who calls

towards blind faith6 only without application of intellect is a fool. On

the other hand, he who relies on intellect only after giving up the

Qur’Én and Sunnah is a proud man.7 The two must be kept

together”.8

To do away with the misconception that revealed sciences and

rational sciences are absolutely two distinct spheres of inquiry and cannot

be related in anyway, Mohsin al-Mulk argues that both the sciences

should not be baffled with each other as the later compliments the

former. In fact, one of the major causes behind such a misunderstanding

is lack of commitment on the part of those scholars who do not bother

to identify the manner in which reason expresses itself as a supplementary

source of revealed understanding. Moreover, there are two other reasons

for such a misconception. Firstly, those sciences which do not fall within

the purview of rational sciences due to their imaginary and dubitable

nature are wrongly categorized as rational sciences. Secondly, those

things which do not pertain to the revealed sciences and do not owe their

origin in the revealed text or the traditional knowledge are supposed to

be the sole concern of revelation. For instance the assumption of some

of the Greek thinkers that God has no knowledge about particulars and

is aware only about universals is in absolute contradiction to the Muslim

belief that God is omniscient. And such a contradiction cannot be supported

by any sort of rational proof as it has nothing to do with rational

demonstration and is based upon mere imagination and doubt. For instance,

an ignorant man’s claim that the earth rests upon a cow’s horn is not

false for being incompatible with reason but due to the fact that one

believes it to be the pronouncement of God and the Prophet (œ) which

is not factual.* Hence the real cause of treating rational sciences and

religious sciences as rivals is not due to their intrinsic nature but due to

one’s inability to situate them in a proper perspective. In other words
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

*It was a popular explanation of Hindu mythology that the earth is held out on

the horns of a cow. When she becomes tired she changes the horn and it causes

earthquakes – Ed.



Hamdard Islamicus 85 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

Mohsin al-Mulk tends to convey that one should not relate things with

rational science which are not concerned with it and result of one’s

doubts and imagination. He further states that one who believes in the

truth of religion and wants to transmit it to others must made scholarly

efforts to demonstrate the role of reason in the understanding of the

revealed text.9

Misconceptions Concerning the Compatibility between

Traditional and Rational

Mohsin al-Mulk has identified four misconceptions that crept

into the intellectual tradition of Islam, which are enormously misleading.

He is of the view that such misconceptions need to be dealt with

due care in order to remove all sorts of misunderstanding concerning the

role of rational and traditional knowledge in the making of Islamic

epistemology.

Epistemological Foundations of Islamic Intellectualism

In the intellectual tradition of Islam one may observe that most of

the scholars as well as lay men influenced by them are of the view that

human reason cannot cognize everything with perfection. But such a

view does not refute the possibility of utilizing one’s faculty of reason in

the understanding of the revealed text. Although it gives an impression

that rational understanding is dubitable. While some scholars are of the

view that tradition consists of God’s message in the form of revealed

scripture and the Sunnah, is not open to the slightest doubt and relating

the former which is indubitable with the latter which is dubitable may

result in various subtleties. Scholars who follow the strict principle of

dichotomy between reason and tradition and tend to argue that reason

has no role in the making of tradition and whatever has been conceived

by the philosophers and intellectuals so far in their research cannot

survive the testimony of reason mean that reason is unable to grasp the

true nature of things and may compel one to commit an error. Hence to

conceive any relation between revealed sciences and rational sciences is

tantamount to relating the just with the unjust.10

Mohsin al-Mulk here seems to suggest that the problem is neither



Hamdard Islamicus 86 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

with tradition nor with reason but it lies in treating them as two absolutely

isolated epistemological spheres of inquiry incapable of contributing towards

the growth of knowledge simultaneously. In fact he tends to convey that

in the intellectual tradition of Islam there is a sufficient room for rational

understanding. He argues that one is certainly aware of the fact that

almost everything one attempts to cognize can be characterized as which

possess inner as well as apparent reality. As mentioned earlier, man is

endowed with qËwwate madÉrik (rational faculty) and deserves to go

beyond the apparent meaning and can explore inner reality of the things

to the extent granted by God.11 Mohsin al-Mulk has aptly referred to

al-Ghazali in order to highlight the significance of human reason and the

possibility of knowledge, who says that:

“The attribute of man which makes him man and distinguishes him

from non-humans and reflects willingness to pursue knowledge in

the field of theoretical sciences and prepares one to intellectualize

about the hidden nature of things is known as reason which everyone

possess. For reason is the source of all the sciences. One who is

not willing to utilize one’s rational ability awarded by God does not

deserve the title of man. Hence the excellence and rise of one’s

intellect is dependent upon hard work and research as it leads one

towards meaningful life”.12

Mohsin al-Mulk states that God has also emphasizes at many places

in the Qur’Én upon the need to explore the inner nature of things and

encourages those who engage themselves in such an intellectual pursuit

as they deserves high reverence.13 Referring to the Qur’Én which he

believes to be the firm evidence which reflects man’s capability to explore

the hidden reality of things says that:

“Contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and earth,

(with the thought)”. (Al-Qur’Én, III:191).

It implies that man’s thought concerning salvation provides an

opportunity to relate all these glories with one’s own being. Otherwise

man would be a miserable and disgraceful creature among these beauties

and wonders of nature. It is due to one’s rational faculty that man is



Hamdard Islamicus 87 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

destined towards salvation and can be lifted even higher than these

glories. In other words man’s ability to reflect on God’s creation leads

him to imply that man is the finest creation of God.

Taking into account the epistemological foundations of research,

Mohsin al-Mulk tends to convey that there are at least two mindsets

which may set the pace for research in two different directions. He

argues that the first kind of research is one in which except religious

evidence (revealed truth) there is no other way to understand anything

unerringly with the help of sense perception, investigation or experience.

It means that the cognitive faculty possessed by man does not play

any active role in the understanding or construction of knowledge. The

second kind of research is one, which beside religious evidence is

also supported by observation, investigation as well as experience.

Thus in the case of the former one may commit an error whereas in

case of the latter it is unlikely to do so. It implies that whatever one

conceives on the basis of reason and experience alone is not necessarily

true, similarly what one understands through revelation alone is

not necessarily untrue.14 In fact, Mohsin al-Mulk like Syed Ahmed, is

interested in showing that human reason plays a significant role in the

understanding of the revealed text which is not against the spirit of

Islam as it provides an opportunity to convince others argumentatively.

But it does not rule out the possibility of committing an error. While it

appears that in case of the latter (tradition) the possibility of committing

an error is far reaching as it relies upon imitation rather than reason or

experience. Although one cannot undermine the importance of tradition

for want of reason and empirical evidence. It means that reason as well

as tradition mutually play a significant role in the interpretation of the

revealed text.

In the light of the above discussion Mohsin al-Mulk claims that it

is obligatory upon every dedicated and true Muslim in general and

researcher in particular to work out the positive side of rational sciences.

And if finds any compatibility with the teachings of Islam; one must act

out of prudence and give up a prejudiced attitude towards it. This may

help one to at least neutralize the antagonism between religion and rational

sciences and may pave the way for progress. He further attempts to

construe his argument by drawing a distinction between the rational

speculative methods of the wise men of Greece in ancient times and



Hamdard Islamicus 88 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

bounded rationality. He believes that the former is not directed towards

any ultimate reality in a religious context and is erroneous due to

the absence of Divine providence. While the latter is purpose oriented

and can guide one about the various interpretation of the revealed

text in which reason and experience play an encouraging role. This may

help one to realize that reason and tradition are intimately related.

He further states that if one thinks that the authenticity of religious

knowledge can be measured merely on the basis of reason and experience

one commits a blunder. By doing so one proves oneself as mËqabir

(unreasonable contender). Mohsin al-Mulk opines that it is the foremost

duty of a genuine research scholar to identify which ideas are compatible

with the intellectual tradition of Islam and those linked with it unjustifiably

in a historical process. This may prove beneficial in doing away with

all the baseless accusations leveled against Islam by its critics regarding

the possibility of progress in Islam and revive the true image of

Islam.15

Mohsin al-Mulk argues that the contemporary Muslim mind

cannot afford to ignore the rapid development of the prevailing sciences

(modern sciences) due to their broadening scope, as they tend to

explore researches in various fields. He contends that although some of

them contradict some of the Islamic ideas and one’s accepted convictions,

it does not imply that one should give up such perusals. For Islam

itself emphasizes that it is farÌ-i kifÉyah (collective duty) of the

community of researchers to preserve the intellectual tradition of

Islam by removing such contradictions. It means that it is not sufficient

on the part of Islamic scholars to identify such contradictions and they

are bound to work them out in order to show what is beneficial and

what is detrimental for the growth of Islamic intellectualism. Thus, it is

not sufficient to engage oneself in mere lip-service by declaring some

of the sciences as ÍarÉm (forbidden) for two reasons. Firstly, that

this era is not ruled by a caliph like Mu‘taÌid Billah (35th caliph of

‘AbbÉsid dynasty) where one will give up the pursuit of rational sciences

and philosophy on the basis of fatwÉ (religious opinion). Secondly, if

one thinks that the modern sciences may have negative impact upon

the intellectual tradition of Islam then one should critically evaluate this

claim and establish it argumentatively in a convincing manner. Because

it requires a strong argument based upon tradition rather than any heresy



Hamdard Islamicus 89 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

to refute or accept anything. Otherwise one is not likely to get rid of

the confusion regarding the compatibility between the rational and

the traditional. For in the present era one cannot undermine the

importance of modern sciences which play a pivotal role in the making

of knowledge.16

Relation between Modern Sciences and Revealed Sciences

Mohsin al-Mulk argues that some scholars are mistakenly of the

view that pursuing knowledge in the field of modern sciences such as

mathematics, geometry and physics, and analyzing them in the context of

the revealed text is an activity in vain,if not forbidden. They are reluctant

to evaluate the legitimacy of modern sciences in the light of tradition

through research. Such scholars are of the view that inclination towards

modern sciences does not necessarily result in atheism but is not fruitful

either. Mohsin al-Mulk is quite critical of such an unscholarly attitude and

considers it to be a hurdle for the intellectual growth of Muslims. He is

of the view that it is the style of the Qur’Én in which most things are

described explicitly along with certain principles and guidelines. Beside

this, God in the Qur’Én also mentions some thought provoking delicacies

of ‘ajÉ’ib (cuirosities) and gharÉ’ib (rarities) which need reflection.

And for this reason Mohsin al-Mulk appreciates those who think and

contemplate about the implicit meanings of things. Thus, the more one is

inclined towards the knowledge of the mÉhiyyat (nature, essence) of

creation and explores the depths of heaven and the earth one understands

is more likely to be strengthened by God’s grace. It appears that

here Mohsin al-Mulk wants to convey that the audience of the Qur’Én

can be classified into two groups. One are those interested not only in

the apparent meanings of the text but are also keen to explore the

interpretive meanings as well. Others are interested only in the apparent

meanings of the text. He further consolidates his argument by referring

to ImÉm RÉzÊ’s commentary of the Qur’Én in which the author explains

the said issue by saying that the diction of the Qur’Én is such that it

invites one to explore the interpretive meanings as well as intricate details

of the text instead of relying merely upon the apparent meanings. He

believes that this will lead one to explore the spirit and greatness of the

revealed text which is necessary to the progressive dimension of Islam.



Hamdard Islamicus 90 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

RÉzÊ is critical of those who undermine the importance of reason in the

understanding of the Qur’Énic text. He explains this fact with the help

of analogical reasoning. He states that one’s belief that a particular book

is of high worth for the reason that it is authored by a great scholar is

more convincing when such a claim is supported by research. Applying

this analogy to God and the Qur’Én, RÉzÊ wants to convey that without

any doubt one’s conviction based upon understanding will be unyielding

to any misgiving and one is more likely to be convinced about the greatness

and jalÉl (magnificence) of its Author.17

Significance of Research in Islam

Mohsin al-Mulk states that some people believe that whatever is

conveyed to mankind by God in the form of revelation through the

Prophet (œ) is absolutely true and does not require any endorsement

and research.18 They are probably of the view that any attempt to

interpret/understand the text is tantamount to challenging the authority of

God, which is based upon false assumptions. Responding to their claim

Mohsin al-Mulk explains that there is no doubt in the truthfulness of the

message sent by God through His Prophet (œ) and the way it is

interpreted by the Prophet (œ). But any attempt to understand the said

message does not imply that one is susceptible towards it as the purpose

of any academic/research activity is to improve one’s own understanding

which leads one to grasp the meanings of the text in a way willed by

God. In fact the point he seems to convey is that in every age it is one

of the most foremost duties of religious scholars to develop an

understanding compatible with the originally intended meanings suppressed

in the course of history due to distortion and the finite nature of man’s

intellect. Mohsin al-Mulk is of the view that reason and tradition are the

two important sources of interpretation and one needs to ascertain the

compatibility between them at least for two reasons. Firstly, by way of

earnest research one is likely to clarify all such concepts which are

wrongly associated with Islam. It may help one to evolve a clear

perspective of religion and minimize the possibility of misinterpretation

and pave the way for the making of a genuine intellectual tradition of

Islam. Secondly, research based knowledge prepares one for appropriate

responses to all such criticism leveled by the critics against Islam. It



Hamdard Islamicus 91 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

seems that here Mohsin al-Mulk is pointing towards the possibility of

creating an atmosphere conducive for an inter-cultural dialogue,19 which

may in turn help one do away with all kinds of misconceptions. He

believes that some of the scholars of Islam are not interested in exploring

the meaning of revealed text in a way intended by God due to lack of

knowledge and an antagonistic attitude towards reason.20

He argues that those who are skeptical concerning the compatibility

between reason and tradition are not aware of the true meaning of

tradition and the constructive role of reason in the making of religious

knowledge as well as tradition. Such people claim that because in the

past great scholars of Islam paid no heed to the said issue then what has

prompted some people in the present time to raise this issue. They might

believe that to draw any compatibility between reason and the word of

God and the sayings of the Prophet (œ) (Tradition) is a necessary

condition to establish its authenticity which is an error. Contrary to this

due to the penetration of masÉ’il ÍakÊmÊyyah (philosophical problems)

people began to criticize ÉqwÉl-i dÊnÊyyah (religious sayings) which

needs clarification. Thus it is the need of the time to portray the true

picture of Islam by drawing from the tradition with the help of reason

instead of any other external source. Mohsin al-Mulk further states that

by establishing an argument that tradition and reason can go together in

a way granted by God, one may be able to disprove those rationalists

who do not value tradition. Hence in the contemporary world it is a

collective duty of the scholars to explore the possibilities of drawing

compatibility between reason and tradition.21 To substantiate his claim, he

aptly refers to the great religious scholar of the subcontinent, ShÉh WÉlÊ

Allah who explains this point in this way:

“The concern with rationality in religious discussions develops and

the doubts in the principles of practical beliefs manifest in such a

way that the issues concerned are led towards the establishment

of the rational arguments in accord with the traditional texts.

Furthermore, the coherence between the traditional and the

rational and between the perceived and the interpreted on the ground

of the essence of faith and one’s subjective efforts has been a

prevalent norm among Muslims as well as all the great scholars of

world”.22



Hamdard Islamicus 92 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

Disagreement Concerning Literal and

Metaphorical Interpretation of the Text

According to Mohsin al-Mulk some religious jurists are of the view

that the prevalence of rational sciences and its amalgamation with religious

sciences may shatter one’s belief in the apparent meanings of the Qur’Énic

verses and the sayings of the Prophet (œ) as it provides room for

metaphorical interpretation. For this reason ‘ulamÉ-i ÐahÊrÊ (a group of

scholars who prefer the literal meaning of verses over metaphorical

meaning) prevents the use of isti‘ÉrÉt (metaphors), tashbÊh (comparison)

tÉwÊl (interpretation) in the explanation of the revealed text. He believes

that the cause of such a disparity can be attributed to the sect existing

in some period of history known as bÉÏinÊyah firqah (a group of scholars

relying only on the interpretive meanings of the verses).23 He further

states that any attempt of the scholars to explain the text interpretively

does not mean that one belongs to the sect which has absolutely forbidden

the apparent meanings of the text. Such an assumption has no room in

Islam as it necessarily compels to construct interpretive meanings of the

text without any justification which defeats the sole purpose of

interpretation in the context of tradition and reason. It encourages formality

and artificiality. That is to say, there is no strict law which bounds one

to explain the revealed text in either of the two ways mentioned above.

Mohsin al-Mulk seems to suggest that both the approaches in isolation

of each other are contrary to the teachings of Islam and detrimental for

Islamic intellectualism. For this reason, due to the limitations of man’s

cognitive faculties, the style of Qur’Én is adaptive to both metaphorical

as well as literal explanation of things. For instance God’s saying that

‘huge angels carry my throne’, is the manifestation of His power and

should not be taken in a literal sense as it is not an expression of a fact.

And the responsibility for any such misunderstanding rests with the

individual alone and not with the Sharʑah (Islamic law).24

Mohsin al-Mulk opines that too much reliance upon the apparent

meanings of the text is detrimental as it distances one from the spiritual

aspect of religion which guides man towards a higher form of civilization.

Mere dependence upon the apparent meanings tends to convey that

Islam as a guiding principle facilitates one only in the attainment of

physical well being and apparent cleanliness and ignores the essential



Hamdard Islamicus 93 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

aspect of one’s being, that is the soul, which is the major cause of

various disagreements among scholars as well as lay-men. To clarify the

said issue concerning the significance of soul, some of the scholars, such

as al-GhazÉlÊ attempted to explore the underlying principles and reality

of the Islamic law which persuades one for the flourishing of soul.

Hence, al-GhazÉlÊ believes that those sciences rooted in tradition are

such universalities which are indubitable and never lead one astray from

the light one receives concerning the essence of things.25 It appears that

here Mohsin al-Mulk tends to consolidate his argument regarding the

legitimacy of the interpretive understanding of the text.  On the other

hand, the prevalent view is contrary to this approach according to which

some ignorant people and a few scholars mistakenly believe that whatever

has been associated with Islam justifiably or unjustifiably should be

accepted unquestionably.26

Conclusion

This paper aims to establish that Mohsin al-Mulk is interested in

emphasizing upon the need to rethink a sort of amalgamation between

the rational and the traditional with the help of hermeneutics, which are

the two fundamental sources of Islamic epistemology. He is of the view

that apart from confining oneself to the apparent meanings of the text,

another error committed by some of the scholars is that in addition to the

revealed text and the sayings of the Prophet (œ) they have also begun

to rely upon the sayings and writings of some famous people. This was

a big blow to the intellectual tradition of Islam. For such a tendency

provides room for false stories which are being intermingled with Islam

making it a religion of stories. The most important remedial measure,

suggested by Mohsin al-Mulk to counter this problem is based upon the

method adopted by the philosophers of Islam in the past who were keen

to pursue knowledge on the pattern of their Greek predecessors. He

believes that it is obligatory upon the Muslims of the subcontinent to

pursue knowledge in the realm of modern sciences to the extent attuned

with tradition. For this reason he stresses upon the need to realize that

anything which reaches us in a historical process in the name of tradition

has to be scrutinized rationally. This may help one to distinguish between

tradition proper and the so-called tradition.



Hamdard Islamicus 94 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

Notes and References

01. Mohsin al-Mulk, TahdhÊb al-AkhlÉq, Munshi Mohammad Fadluddin Publishers,

Lahore, 1895, vol. I, p. 133.

02. ImÉm GhazÉli, Revival of Religious Learning, Tr. Fazl-ul-Karim Darul-Ishaat,

Karachi, 1993, vol. III, p. 22.

03. Mohsin al-Mulk, TahdhÊb al-AkhlÉq, Munshi Mohammad Fadluddin Publishers,

Lahore, 1895, vol. I, p. 134.

04. Mohsin al-Mulk, TahdhÊb al-AkhlÉq, Munshi Mohammad Fadluddin Publishers,

Lahore, 1895, vol. I, pp. 134-135, and ImÉm GhazÉlÊ, Revival of Religious

Learning, Lahore, Tr. Fazl-ul-Karim Darul-Ishaat, Karachi, 1993, vol. III, p. 20.

05. Mohsin al-Mulk, TahdhÊb al-AkhlÉq, Munshi Mohammad Fadluddin Publishers,

Lahore, 1895, vol. I, p. 136.

06. This debate by GhazÉlÊ regarding the revealed understanding with reference to

faith and reason remind me of St. Augustine’s classical axiom “Credo utintelligam,”

“I believe that I may understand,” which emphasizes the importance of reason

in religious understanding, see Joe Park, Selected Readings in The Philosophy of

Education, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1958, p. 342.

07. Here one can see a parallel between GhazÉlÊ’s approach towards understanding

of the revealed text and the one expounded by Aristotle in the context of ethics

known as the ‘principle of golden mean’. The former is epistemological in

orientation, according to which, one is not supposed to rely solely upon reason

in an attempt to understand the revealed text as it may deviate one from the true

path. Nor one should absolutely give up the use of rational faculty and follow

faith without understanding as it defeats the sole purpose of the Divine message.

It entails that the religious understanding has to be aided by reason. While the

latter is ethical in nature which focuses upon one’s moral development by

practicing the principle of golden mean or moderation guided by reason. In other

words in order to live a moral life one should avoid extremes such as excess and

deficiency. For instance wisdom is a means to cunningness (excess) and simplicity

(deficiency), see Joe Park, Selected Readings in the Philosophy of Education, New

York, The Macmillan Company, 1958, p. 4.

08. ImÉm GhazÉlÊ, Revival of Religious Learning, Tr. Fazl-ul-Karim Darul-Ishaat,

Karachi, vol. III, 1993, pp. 21-22.

09. Mohsin al-Mulk, TahdhÊb al-AkhlÉq, Munshi Mohammad Fadluddin Publishers,

Lahore, 1895, vol. I, p. 136-137.

10. Ibid., p. 138.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid., pp. 138-139.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid., pp. 139-140.

15. Ibid., pp. 140-141.

16. Ibid., pp. 141-142.

17. Ibid., p. 143.



Hamdard Islamicus 95 Vol. XLI, Nos. 3 & 4

18. This point is very well highlighted by the twentieth century Islamic scholar

Fazlur Rahman in this way: “The Qur’Én and the Sunnah were given for

intelligent moral understanding and implementation, not for rigid formalism”. See

Fazlur Rahman, Islamic Methodology in Islam, Islamabad, Islamic Research

Institute, 2009, p. 74.

19. Here Mohsin al-Mulk seems to be inspired by the research oriented work

produced by Syed Ahmed Khan, known as Al-KhuÏbÉt al-AÍmadiyyah, in the

history, as a response of William Muir’s book Life of Mohammad, in which the

author raised baseless objections against the Prophet (œ). See Sir Syed Ahmed

Khan, Al-KhuÏbÉt al-AÍmadiyyah fil ‘Arab wal SÊrat-ul-MuÍammdiyyah, Lahore,

Idarae Dawat-ul-Furqan, 2003.

20. Mohsin al-Mulk, TahdhÊb al-AkhlÉq, Munshi Mohammad Fadluddin Publishers,

1895, vol. I, p. 144.

21. Ibid., p. 144.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid., p. 145.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., p. 146.

26. Ibid., p. 146-147.