Discussions on Causation in Islamic Legal Theory (fourth-eighth centuries after Hegira)

Causation is a deep and complex issue as it involves many disciplines. This dissertation looks at various views and discussions regarding causation in Islamic legal verdicts during fourth-eighth centuries after Hegira. I also looked at the theological and philosophical background of this issue in order to make sense of discussions in legal theory. For example, views of philosophers, such as Farabi and Ibn Sina, on teleological causation depend on their conception of causality, which is also dependent on their ontological views. According to these philosophers existents are not a goal for Necessary Being, rather, Necessary Being is a goal for existents. All contingent beings act according to a goal, this idea of goal can be seen in the whole universe. Theologians have divergent views on causation due to their differing conceptions of reason (hikma) and vain (abes). According to Mu‟tazilites it is necessary for God to have public good in His actions. Ash‟arites and Maturidites believe that public good in God‟s actions are not necessary, rather they are due to God‟s mercy for humanbeings. These theologians believe that nothing is necessary for God, because necessity is incompatible with God‟s free will. With regard to the problem morality i.e. whether something is good or evil, Ash‟arites believe that reason cannot judge whether an action should be rewarded or punished prior to the Revelation. Ash‟arites reject Mu‟tazili view of causation. Moreover, they reject the idea that God‟s actions have goals or intentions which are made necessary by reason. Hence, they do not reject the idea of goal or intention for God‟s action considering that they are not seen as necessary for God by reason. While Mu‟tazilites believe that besides God‟s will other things such as goal or intentions are necessary for God‟s actions, Ash‟arites and Maturidites believe that only God‟s will is necessary for His actions. Legal theorists view of causation is dependent on their view of causality which is also dependent on their theological views on causation. Thus their views reflect VII theological views on this issue. The claim that Ash‟arites generally and al-Razi specifically rejected causation is inaccurate. This mistaken view is due to the fact that various terms used by Ash‟arite are treated without considering the context in which they were used. All of legal theorists believe that religious verdicts include public good. However, they express this idea in different ways.