al-ʾUmūr al-ʿāmma refers to the introductory chapter heading for concepts and topics which address the issues of metaphysics, the science of the universal. This introductory heading which encompasses general topics, concepts, and cases, is the most distinctive feature that differentiates the kalām in the Muta’akhkhirūn period from the Kalām in the Mutaqaddīmūn period. This is because the science of Kalām inherited these topics as the result of its interaction with peripatetic philosophy represented by Islamic philosophers, such as al-Kindī, al-Fārābī, and (...) Avicenna. Before Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, theologians addressed various concepts such as mawjūd, maʿdūd, maʿdūm, qadīm, muḥdāth, shayʾ by including them in their works as commonly used nouns and adjectives in a disorganised manner or without devoting a separate chapter heading to them. It was al-Rāzī, who discussed al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma under a separate heading with original content and through a combined method based on the relationship between Kalām and philosophy by using the previously available literature, that helped al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma acquire an important status in the science of Kalām. This is because this tittle, which examine abstract and general concepts such as existence, non-existence, mawjūd, maʿdūm, quiddity (māhiyyah) and its appendages such as unity, multiplicity, necessity, possibility, impossibility, ḥudūth, eternity a parte ante (qidam), substance (jawhar), accident (ʿaraḍ), cause (ʿilla), and maʿlūl, were reconsidered by the theologians after al-Rāzī and became a point of departure for their works. Later theologians largely followed al-Rāzī’s framework and organisation of al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma and/or based their new organisations on it. Besides using his framework, they tried to define al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma in different ways and from different perspectives, and, at times, allowed for debates of sorts. One of the debates that emerged as a result of these defining endeavours is why these concepts were included within the scope of al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma discussions or what aspects of these concepts were discussed within al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma. This debate revolves around such notions as quiddity, impossibility, and non-existence in relation to the aforementioned notions. Among these concepts, non-existence takes the lead. This is because existence is both the most general concept and one of the most commonly addressed concepts in al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma due to its direct relationship with other concepts. This has brought non-existence, which has a close relationship with existence, to the forefront. In these discussions, the concept of non-existence is sometimes examined alone, sometimes together with the concept of impossibility, both directly and indirectly. In fact, the reason for the inclusion and evaluation of the concept of non-existence in al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma per se has turned into topic of discussion by itself over time. In this context, after discussing the conceptualisation process of al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma, this study examines how philosophers and theologians, who, it must be reiterated, define al-ʾumūr al-ʿāmma in different ways, examine the concept of non-existence under that chapter heading, and it goes on to determine the aspects that led them to include non-existence therein. (shrink)

One of the fundamental debates that theologians have held to discuss the possibility of and to facilitate understanding of the bodily resurrection is iʿādat al-maʿdūm; that is, the restoration of the non-existent. Despite some differences in their perspectives, theologians, including the Muʿtazilites, have considered iʿādat al-maʿdūm possible. Avicenna, who opposed the classical views of theologians by rejecting iʿādat al-maʿdūm, provoked a new discussion and fuelled controversy about this issue. Later Islamic philosophers and theologians who were influenced by him took his (...) path and reformulated his arguments about the impossibility of iʿādat al-maʿdūm. Likewise, the theologians of the mutaʾakhkhirūn period, who defended the possibility of iʿādat al-maʿdūm, in support of the classical view, voiced new criticisms against these recontructed arguments. Thus, the debate turned into a highly controversial issue between Islamic philosophers and theologians. In fact, unlike the theologians who included the issue of iʿādat al-maʿdūm in the subsections of the samʿiyyāt chapters as an extension of the resurrection debates, Islamic philosophers did not consider it possible and preferred to address it under the subheadings of the umūr al-āmma chapters on existence and non-existence, in which metaphysical issues were discussed. This is because Avicenna considered iʿādat al-maʿdūm a metaphysical issue related to non-existence. On the one hand, some philosophers, who considered iʿādat al-maʿdūm impossible, deployed the new argument that things that existed and then disappeared could not be recreated in the same way. On the other hand, others expressed their criticisms against these arguments in the disputatious style (jadali) and tried to defend the restoration of the non-existent in the same way. Therefore, the theologians who addressed these issues in their works helped answer the question of whether it is possible to recreate the non-existent. This is because the texts provided detailed and important information about the course of the debate, such as who rejects and accepts iʿādat al-maʿdūm, the background and context of the debate between philosophers and theologians, the proofs put forward for the rejection of recreation, the criticisms in response to these proofs, and the evidence put forward for recreation. Therefore, the present study aims to discuss the arguments for iʿādat al-maʿdūm; that is, whether maʿdūm can be recreated in the same way, and the criticisms against these arguments, which have become a subject of debate between theologians and philosophers. Avicenna’s ideas are also highlighted in the study as he is the source of the arguments for the impossibility of iʿādat al-maʿdūm. In terms of its scope, the present study is based on the major works of the prominent theologians of the mutaʾakhkhirūn period and the main commentaries written on these works. (shrink)

The problem of mental existence is a multidimensional subject that is related to many issues with its ontological and epistemological aspects. Both philosophers and theologians have addressed this problem from different perspectives and have discussed it among themselves. These discussions have produced some evidence and criticisms about mental existence in terms of acceptance and rejection. In these discussions, which are also associated with different issues, the use of information about maʿdūm, particularly as evidence of mental existence, also helped pinpoint the (...) source of the knowledge about maʿdūm. The fact that maʿdūm is the subject of knowledge is often a matter of consensus among theologians if some exceptions are disregarded. Particularly due to the extension of the subject of kalām to the known, it is a matter accepted by the scholars that maʿdūm can be known, whether it is mumkin (possible) or mumtani‘ (impossible). Therefore, the issue of where the information about it is located has emerged as an extension of the discussions on mental existence. In this context, in terms of epistemological theories they adopted, both theologians and philosophers have questioned the epistemological and ontological location of the knowledge of such concepts as ma'dūm, which hardly exist in the objective world but can be reasoned out or judged or imagined, and they have tried to determine the source of this knowledge. As a result of this effort, they have recognized that the source of knowledge about maʿdūm can be explained in two ways: the mind and outside world. In response to theologians, who claimed that the place of knowledge about maʿdūm is the mind, it has been claimed that the place of this knowledge is not the mind but the outside world. No consensus has been reached among those who claimed that the information was outside; some claimed that this information was in Plato's ideas, while others claimed that it was in the active mind. On the other hand, there has been no disagreement among those who considered the source of knowledge about maʿdūm as the mind. Based on this perspective, the present study tried to identify the source and place of information about maʿdūm, with a particular reference to the later kalām period, based on the evidence put forward to prove mental existence and the criticisms against such evidence. As a part of these discussions, the disputing parties were specified and the criticisms of the opponents towards each other were also included. This is because the nature of these criticisms is critical as such criticisms are capable of revealing the opinions of those who have opposing views about the source of knowledge of maʿdūm. The scope of the present study was limited to al-Rāzī and some later theologians as it was Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, who brought mental existence up for discussion as a specific point of debate. Therefore, in the present study, the famous theological texts that are highly representative of mental existence in the late kalām period and prominent commentaries written on these basic texts were preferred. (shrink)