In this article, Sujjawal Ahmad looks at the view of God presented in the Classical Ismaili Philosophy.
“God is completely different to whatever you imagine; He neither resembles anything nor can imagination [ever] attain Him,for how could imagination ever attain Him while He is totally different to what is bound by reason and [also] different from what can be pictured in imagination?He can be imagined only as an entity beyond reason and beyond [ any] limitation. ”
-Imam al-Baqir (Early Shi’i Thought, Arzina R. Lalani, p.94)
The scriptures of all Abrahamic religions are emphatic with regard to the unity of God. There is but one God:
“There is no god but He the Exalted in Power the Wise.” Qur’án 3:18
“I [am] the Lord, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the Lord , and [there is] none else.” Isaiah 45:5–6
‘Tawḥīd‘ is simply a declaration of the absolute oneness of God. As a very fundamental of the Islamic doctrine, held unanimously by all theistic schools of thought. Theologians have struggled much to describe conception of Oneness of God throughout history. Ismaili philosophy, with an aim to preclude any taint of duality, descibes God such that there is no compromise to God’s unique integrity in any way. God is seen such that He is absolutely beyond any description or definition.
God – the Ultimate Reality:
The concept of God, called classical theism, found in the intellectual and philosophical traditions of all monotheistic religions, conceives God as an Ultimate or Absolute Reality. The differences concerning the nature of the Ultimate Reality, however, have been a great source of disagreement and conflict throughout history of religion.
The concepts of Classical Theism are based on Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophy, was developed during the 3rd Century by St. Augustine (heavily influenced by Plotinus ) and St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century, was further extended by Neoplatonic traditions of Medieval times in Islam like those of Mulla Sadra, Ibn-e- Sina, and Ismaili Philosphers. In modern times, David Bentley Hart has widely defended classical theism.
In Islam the topic of Tau’heed itself has been a matter of much debates between different schools of philosophers and theologians, the study of which is full of extensive and complex analysis. In this article, I wish to take a close look at the view of God presented in the writings of Ismaili thinkers.
The Quran describes God in this way:
“Vision comprehendeth Him not, but He comprehendeth (all) vision. He is the Subtile, the Aware.” (al-Quran, alAnaam; 103)
The aspect of the concept of God in Ismailism that distinguishes it most from others, as we have already seen, is that for Ismaili thinkers, God is an all transcendent Reality which cannot be described with a simile, analogy or definition. God is beyond all ranks, grades and degrees (maratib ) and totally transcends unity and plurality, perfection and imperfection, such that there is no way to tolerate human perception of Him. It is impossible for human mind to grasp the understanding of Him because human mind is able to understand, describe or elaborate only that which has been created or originated by God while He, Himself is totally beyond under our comprehension, perception and description. There is neither the way of thought to grasp His understanding nor there is any room for a speaker to speak about Him. He is beyond human description by use of language, as Human speech and speaker are both dependent on what has been created by Him.
“Speech (or reason, Nutq) is powerless, unable to penetrate the true realities and understanding (haqa’iq wa basa’ir) of His ipseity (huwiyyat)”
-Sayyidina Nāsir Khusrāu (Shish fasl, trans. Ivano ,The First Chapter, on the Recognition of the Oneness of God)
Associating God attributes of creatures: Entails Polytheism?
In Ismaili system of thought, God holds the position of an unknowable Reality whose Ipseity (essence) cannot be perceived through senses and is totally beyond human perception and comprehension. So, God cannot be the object of discursive thought, because our brains cannot deal with Him in the way that they deal with everything else.
“The veracity of those who profess tawḥīd is confirmed when they attest that He cannot be expressed neither by an outward speech, nor by an interior thought. How could letters refer to an entity that brings into existence all things created, emanated and produced?”
– Sayyidina Hamid uddin al-Kirmānī, ( Rāḥat al aql, 145) .
Because God is absolutely unique in His Essence, He cannot be compared to any of the things that exist in the normal, contingent sense. To associate with God the attributes of his creatures entails polytheism and interferes with the sanctity of the tawhid, as Nāsir Khusrāu says:
“This group who keep claiming to uphold oneness are in fact polytheists. They ascribe creaturely traits to God. This entails granting partnership to man with God in the form of knowledge, hearing, seeing, a face, limbs, and motion from place to place. This group’s belief is an admission of polytheism.”
– Sayyidina Nasir khusrau , [Kitāb-i Jāmiʿ al-ḥikmatayn, trans. Ormsby 50]
It is thus a radical error to seek to explain God in rational terms, not simply because of the limitations of the human mind but also because any natural idea we form about God is bound to be flawed, and therefore, to worship God with such an understanding is a mere idolatry and entails polytheism.
“Nor can it be true tawḥīd to ascribe creaturely qualities to God. On the contrary, that is anthropomorphism.”
-Sayyidina Nasir khusrau , [Kitāb-i Jāmiʿ al-ḥikmatayn, trans Ormsby 67]
For Ismaili thinkers, it is thus, not true for us to ascribe God attributes that are characteristic of those things that exist because of His Command. It is not proper for us to ascribe Him any quality that belongs to His creatures. All attributes and qualities that human mind can think of, exist due to His Divine Will; and to associate with Him anything that human mind can think of, according to Nāsir Khusrāu, is to associate with Him a lie.
Beyond Theism and Monism: Monorealism
The idea of Monorealism implies that there is only a single Absolute Reality – everything else only a relative reality. This view implies that the Absolute Reality cannot be considered as a cause, while any reality other than God appears to be dependent on other realities, that is to say, they can never be termed as Absolute. This concept of the nature of the Ultimate Reality can be called mono-realism since it considers that there is only one Absolute Reality. It also differs from monotheism in that it considers the Ultimate Reality as an impersonal Reality void of any attributes. This Reality does not act in the world and cannot be said to possess those features that are typical of theism, such as intervening in the world or being pleased with certain human beings and angry with others.
It should be pointed out that this position is also held by some thinkers of modern times e.g Paul Tillich, a 20th century christian theologian, being a leading opponent of natural theology, he writes :
“The concept of a ‘Personal God’ interfering with natural events, or being ‘an independent cause of natural events’, makes God a natural object beside others, an object among others, a being among beings, maybe the highest, but nevertheless a being. This indeed is not only the destruction of the physical system but even more the destruction of any meaningful idea of God.”
-Paul Tillich, Theology and Culture (New York and Oxford,) 1964, P.129
Other Muslim philosophers of medieval times (e.g Ibn-e-Sina ) identify God as Wajib ul Wajood (existence of which is necessary), the Cause of causes or the First mover. According to this view, God holds position of a Cause, instead of Being Independent Reality. They describe, for example, God as the Cause of the First Intellect. But for Ismaili philosophers, this kind of notion no longer preserves the Absolute Transcendence of God. In Ismaili metaphysics, the Cause of all causes is His Divine Will, not God Himself.
Ismaili Muslim Approach of Double Negation: Beyond Ta’atil and Tashbih
The methods of attribution of God, which is one of the aspects popular among orthodox schools of theologians of world religions, have been very utterly and strongly discouraged by Ismaili thinkers and they have termed it as a total anthropomorphism (mushabida ). However, at the same time, Ismaili thinkers also reject the most radically anti-anthropomorphic doctrine of the rationalist Mu‘tazila who had sought path of going too far in their negation of attributes from God.
“Even if all beings (hast-ha) disappear, He will not suffer any loss (nuqsan) in His oneness, because it is the Ipseity (huwiyyat) of God which has brought them into being. The categories of cause and caused, property and being in possession of property, limit and being limited, cannot be either attributed to Him, or denied to Him, or have any likeness to Him. In fact, these categories never possessed such likeness, that He might become greater with the addition of them, or suffer a loss without them. He is beyond being or not-being.”
-Sayyidina Nasir khusrau (Shish fasl, Ivano trans.The First Chapter, on the Recognition of the Oneness of God)
As it would be an act of sheer denudation of the Divine Essence, if we merely repudiate God of His existence, or of Him being Merciful – a term used for this act is Ta’til, that is to negate God of His attributes as opposed to Tashbih which means to ascribe God with creaturely attributes. Since the mere negation of God’s attributes is not enough to consider Him an absolutely transcendent Reality, Ismaili thinkers, thus, have tried to solve this paradox by taking another approach in the form of ‘double negation’.
“…transcendentiation (mujarrad kardan) of the Creator is not achieved completely except through the elimination of that which opposes these eliminations, eliminating the first in order for is to avoid tashbih and in elimination the latter to avoid ta’til.”
-Sayyidina Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani ( Kashf-al-Mahjub, p 14–15)
“There is no more sublime and more noble form of denudation than the way we denudate our Creator by those statements which juxtapose two negations: a negation and the negation of this negation”
-Sayyidina Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistānī ( Kitāb alIftikhār,88).
According to this approach of double negation, we should begin, firstly, by talking about God in negatives, saying, for example, that He is ‘non-being’ rather than ‘being’, not in space rather in space, not limited rather than limited and so forth. But this rather lifeless and abstract negation should immediately be negated, saying that God is ‘not non-being’ or that He is not ‘No-thing’ and so on. By a repeated use of this linguistic discipline, anyone would become aware of that He is totally different from His creatures and that He shares not the slightest quality with them; and such a double negative approach to God does nothing more than making one realize the inadequacy of human language when it tries to convey the mystery of God. That is what indeed the ultimate aim of tawḥīd: professing the absolute unity of God by removing from Him all that implies multiplicity (including the number ‘one’ which refers to the Intellect)
In Ismaili thought, it is firmly established that God is above all attributes that human mind can think of. Ismaili thinkers even excluded God from the attribute of being and non being. As for God is beyond the attribute of Being and Non Being, it is essential here to understand what does ‘being’ means and how do Ismaili thinkers have explained it. For Sijistani, as he says in the first chapter of his Kashf-al-majub, Being ( hasti ) only applies to that entity that can be imagined as non being ( nisti ), or by relating it to anything that precedes it or dominates it. As in both ways, the notion of being cannot be applied to God, so it can be understood that being itself comes into existence as a result of God’s command, and can only be characteristic of creatures not God, Himself.
We cannot call God that He exists, for anything that exists, it means it is either a substance and the existence of a substance depends upon anything else that serves as its cause. That simply means is if He were a substance then He would not be exempted from the aspects of need and multiplicity that are inseparable from the substance. God, in His complete transcendence, is above being preceded by something else. There is no cause for him, so He is excluded from being existent. But at the same time we also exclude the idea of God from being non-existent, in order to avoid the notion of His denial.
“It is not befitting for God to be either the cause or the effect, and it is therefore not appropriate to say that God is an existent. It should be known that the Absolute Existent [the Command of God] is originated by Him, and His ipseity transcends existence [and] its opposite which is nonexistence.”
-Sayyidina Nasir khusrau ,(Gushayish wa Rahayish, trans.Hunzai, 42)
Thus God’s Ipseity must be assumed above being existent because everything that exists, its existence comes under His Command. Existence is the result of His Command which manifests itself through originating Intellect.
Ismaili Imams have always insisted on the fact that there is no way of comprehension of God. Human beings have had and can have no success in trying to obtain any comprehension of God.
“Praise be to Allah. He is such that senses cannot perceive Him, place cannot contain Him, eyes cannot see Him” (Nahjul Balagha: Sermon 185)
“He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His oneness, nor does he who likens Him grasp His reality. He who illustrates Him does not signify Him” (Nahjul Balagha: Sermon 186).
In this article, we have examined various points of Ismaili approach of classical theism against traditional theism. We have examined how Ismaili Philosophy describes Taw’heed at different levels:
Firstly that God is ‘One’, and an Absolute Reality which transcends time and space, analogy or description.
Secondly, the assertion that human minds are incapable to grasp an understanding or comprehension of the Ultimate Reality.
Thirdly, Ismaili Philosophers place God beyond the attributes described in the scriptures, and associate those attributes to the Universal Intellect. For them while God is Beyond all attributes, these are Manifested through His Divine Command in the Form of the Most Perfect Intellect also termed as Light of God in the Qur’an. The Command of God ‘Kun‘ is the source of manifestation of Divine attributes in ‘Nur‘ and hence the source of all being and therefore the point of origin towards which human beings seek to return.
About the Author
The author is a Pakistan based writer and science student. Sujjawal also shows interest in Philosophical traditions of the world religions.