AGAINST THE EXCESSES OF NOMINALISM

It is reported - but Allah knows best - that the Prophet Muhammad - may peace be upon him - said, "Allah is beautiful and He loves beauty."

It is reported - and Allah knows best - that Muhyidden Ibn Arabi, a friend of God - may Allah be pleased with him - said, "God is your mirror in which you contemplate yourself and you are His mirror in which He contemplates His attributes."

Both the Christian and the Muslim traditions have been torn apart by the excesses of nominalist thinking. The impasse of modernity is largely the outcome of a rampant nominalism, a denial of the real. Extreme nominalism is a corrosive scourge in both religions. Nominalism is the anti-Platonic philosophy that denies the reality of "universals" - and therefore denies that there is any real analogy between God and man. It is a temptation in Muslim thinking because Islam insists on the absolute transcendence of Allah Almighty and denies that He is comparable to anyone or anything. The nominalist takes this fact too far. The nominalist says that God is a capricuous being Who, because He is not bound by anything, is not bound by reason. The nominalist emphasizes God's utter remoteness from man. Man in no way resembles Him.

But Islam, at the same time, teaches that there is a real correspondence between man and God, for man is God's chosen khalifa (deputy) on earth. The nominalist sees man only as God's slave (abd). This is a partial truth. Man is both khalifa (deputy) and abd (slave) and there are grave consequences for overlooking one of them while over-emphasizing the other. In orthodox Islam man is both deputy and slave to God. As well, God is both utterly transcendent and utterly immanent - nearer to man than his jugular vein - and it is a serious theological error to assert one without the other. The ability to entertain the paradox that He is both is the very foundation of religious gnosis and the inability to accept the paradox is the hallmark of ignorance and a hardened heart. The nominalist exaggerates man's slavery to God by ignoring his deputation as khalif over God's creation.

Much "fundamentalist" thinking is thus nominalist in character. It takes the form of a renunciation of reason. There is a rejection of "reasoning by analogy" as a method of law and a tendency to voluntarist literalism. Man's duty as God's slave is simply to obey His commands. Piety consists in utter surrender to His will. A slave does not question why, he merely obeys and his salvation is in obedience to his Almighty Master. There has been a very powerful tendency towards this position in much Muslim thought in both classical and modern times.

But man is also khalif to God. He is God's deputy. He is not just a slave. He is God's deputy. Imagine if you will the following scenario:

A Slavemaster calls aside his best and most favoured slave and tells him that he (the slave) is being appointed as his (the Slavemaster's) deputy or steward. The slave falls to the ground in submission and vows to follow his Master's every command in utmost obedience. His Master explains that his duties include tending to his Master's property and he gives the slave instructions on how it is to be done according to his Master's desires.

But the slave fails to rise to this new level of responsibility. He is forever falling to the ground in submission and vowing to follow his Master's every command in utmost obedience. But if his Master confides in him as his deputy or befriends him he simpers and cowers like a low slave instead of responding appropriately to his Master's trust. And when his Master gives him instructions he is so fearful of presuming to think for his Master that he follows the instructions literally and he fails to think for himself as deputies are required to do. He fails his duties.

His Master tells him to prevent people from urinating in a lake. The slave does this, but he does not stop people from defecating in the lake. The lake is polluted. Why didn't he prevent people defecating in the lake? Because he dare not presume to extend his Master's instructions beyond what he was told. His defence is "You said urinating, Master, and I dare not try to guess your will."

The Slavemaster will be disappointed with such a slave. This slave - hyper obedient though he is - proves to be a poor deputy.

The slave - or rather deputy - has misconstrued what true obedience is. His Master expected him to use his nous and understand that the ban on urinating in the lake extends to other forms of pollution too. Must the Slavemaster explain everything? A good slave would not impose such a tedious burden upon his Master. The Slavemaster appointed this slave as his deputy because this slave seemed intelligent - the Master expects his slave to make intelligent decisions for himself and to act as deputy. Deputation implies permission to think!

And it is not a matter of guessing what the Master's will might be. A good slave - and especially a deputy - knows his Master, understands his Master's preferences, knows how his Master thinks so as to be able to please his Master. He knows that his Master is an intelligent man. The slave is an intelligent slave. He can think in sympathy with his Master and make decisions on behalf of his Master but within the limits of the powers of a deputy.

The instance of urinating in a lake is an actual example provided by the extreme medieval nominalist Ibn Hazam. Refering to a hadith that prohibited urinating in a still body of water, Ibn Hazam was so reluctant to add or subtract from God's instructions that he ruled that the prohibition on urinating in a body of water could not be extended - reasoning by analogy - to defacating in the same lake. For Ibn Hazam literal obedience without any recourse to one's reasoning faculties is the pious act. Ibn Hazam fails to appreciate man's nature as God's trusted khalif , his appointed representative on earth. His over-emphasis on man as abd leads him to ridiculous conclusions.

In fact, orthodox Islam and orthodox Christianity share exactly the same answer to the realist/nominalist conundrum. It was stated by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215:

Between God and man there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language.

There is a real analogy between man and God in Islam - prophecy would be impossible if it were not so - but this in no way changes the fact that God is utterly different than man, although this truth does not abolish analogy and the language we use in analogy.

There are two parts to the confession of faith in Islam: La illaha illa Lah and Muhammadan rasulla Lah. The first part asserts the nominalist insistance that God is utterly incomparable, but the second part of the confession counterbalances this with an assertion of the prophethood of Muhammad whose heart received the Holy Koran in its entireity and perfection - God's prophet and khalif. There is no reality but Reality and Muhammad is the mirror of Reality. The heart of man is a mirror to God. There is a real analogy between man and God in Islam.

Extreme forms of realism lead to gross over-estimations of the powers of man. If the khalif forgets that he is also abd he becomes puffed with pride and soon is doing his own will rather than that of his Master. He becomes corrupt with power, awed by his own God-appointed status.

Note: This article makes use of material employed controversially by Pope Benedeict XVI in 2006.

It is reported - and Allah knows best - that Al-Junayd, a friend of God - may Allah be pleased with him - said, "Divine unity is the return of man to his origin, so that he will become as he was before he came into being."

Site Map