The AMI Podcast

While the task of jurisprudence (fiqh) is to determine what people are supposed to do in their daily affairs by inference from premises that involve the divine rulings of Sharia, the science of the principles of jurisprudence (uṣūl) is intended to facilitate such transitions by providing the relevant methodological principles and rules of validity for such inferences. In that sense, the science of usūl can be regarded as the logic of jurisprudence. One of the principles that a jurist needs to rely on to derive religious (Sharia) rulings concerns the evidence at their disposal. This evidence either directly comes from the Qurʾān and the Sunna or is grounded in reason. The former comes into two varieties: linguistic evidence which involves statements of the Qurʾān and the non-linguistic variety which includes, among other things, the actions of the māʿṣūm (infallible). For linguistic evidence to fulfil its role, however, three things must be determined: (i) the prima facia meaning of the evidence and what it denotes, (ii) its reliability (ḥujjiyya), and (iii) whether evidence did, in fact, issue from the legislator. The questions that arise from the role of linguistic evidence in the process of deriving particular Sharia rulings have, however, spawned an important chapter in the science of uṣūl about the foundations of meaning. These investigations include discussions about the characterisation of meaning, its apparent arbitrary character as well as its different varieties. More fundamental questions concern the origin of meaning i.e., what renders words or expressions meaningful. Here, discussions of such concepts as convention, usage, and intention feature prominently. Although important insights are fleshed out in these uṣūlī investigations, the overall results are often fragmentary and disconnected. It is here that the contemporary analytic philosophy of language can fruitfully interact with the science of uṣūl. In this paper, focusing on the works of Mohammad Bagher Sadr, I shall try to bring some of the discussions of meaning in the philosophy of language to bear on the issues of linguistic meaning discussed in the science of uṣūl. Hopefully, investigations along these lines may result in the mutual enrichment of both disciplines.

Medieval Muslim legal theorists devised increasingly complex categorisations of linguistic clarity and ambiguity. This paper traces the emergence of key terms including muḥkam, mutashābih, mujmal, and ẓāhir, which eventually crystalised in a four-fold Shāfiʿī classification and an eight-fold Ḥanafī one. Both these systems treated clarity and ambiguity not as features of the words and sentences of scripture, but as interpretive claims about the hermeneutical relationship between a text and a proposed interpretation of it. Both the Shāfiʿī and Ḥanafī systems served the same purpose, which was not to pin down meanings but to give the jurists as much interpretive power and flexibility as they reasonably could within the bounds of ordinary linguistic usage. Those legal theorists who resisted this combination of power and flexibility, including Ẓāhirīs and Akhbārīs, could not prevail against the flexible mainstream paradigm that took hold among Sunnīs and Imāmīs alike, and that still tacitly undergirds most legal discourse today. Today modern reformers and traditionalists alike exploit the vocabulary of clarity and ambiguity to support their interpretations. One highly original reformulation of these concepts comes from the Egyptian thinker Hassan Hanafi, who compounds the flexibility of the classical hermeneutic by retaining the flexible mainstream legal theorists’ analysis of ambiguity, albeit transposed into the language of twentieth-century European phenomenology, and then adding two more layers of ambiguity or subjectivity through his theory of how language relates to phenomenal reality and human action. This aspect of Hanafi’s hermeneutic has been much appreciated in some quarters, but all by itself interpretive flexibility is not the panacea some reformers take it to be, for flexibility cuts both ways: it can be used to justify reform or to uphold the status quo, and if anything is more readily amenable to the latter. As Hanafi himself illustrates, those who seek to justify the most radical reinterpretations cannot pin their hermeneutical hopes on the ambiguity of language, but are compelled to reconsider the whole theory of language and meaning on which classical legal theory rested.

Muslim scriptural text seems to pose contemporary challenges as to how its reader may mitigate tension between what text says and what it means. This tension defines the hermeneutical problem represented in the potential opposition between language and meaning, such opposition which Muslim jurists, and Arabic philologists for that matter, sought to resolve by referring to the idea of ‘context’. Particularly in juristic literature, Muslim scholars tend to use the word ‘context’ in two meanings: 1) ‘context’ in the sense of the linguistic context of the scriptural text; that is to read a text semantically and thematically according to its language-use and in connection with the surrounding texts which come before and after (aka sawābiq and lawāḥiq), where syntactical structure and speech arrangement are detrimental in the meaning-making process, and 2) ‘context’ as referring to the specifics of a given situation, where a text is read in connection with its speaker’s (authorial) intent and its surrounding historical and cultural circumstances. Based on these two meanings, ‘context’ can be classified into two types: context of language and context of situation, to borrow Malinowski’s term for the latter type. This paper seeks to demonstrate that the Muslim jurists relegated ‘context of situatio’ to an ancillary but instrumental role in determining meaning, as they do not seem to envisage the possibility of meaning beyond text or outside the context of language-use. It is possible however, I argue, to redeem a space within classical Islamic tradition, where ‘context of situation’ can be said to play an equally active role in the meaning-making process, hence balancing/reconciling the notion of language with the notion of meaning. Toward that end, the current paper seeks to expand the idea of ‘context’ to include another type of ‘context’, i.e., the context of interpreting religious text in connection with concrete reality. That is, a text – to be intelligible – is to be understood in connection with the way the text applies to a concrete situation. With this, the paper shall refer to three types of ‘context’: context of language, context of situation, and context of application. The paper shall draw on perspectives not only from classical Islamic knowledge but also from the philosophy of language and philosophical hermeneutics that may inform discussions on the attempt to develop such hermeneutics of application from within Islamic tradition. As it proceeds to situate its argument within Islamic tradition and modern knowledge, this paper will make references to 1) classical Islamic scholars such as al-Shāṭibī, Ibn al-Qayyim, and other philologists and jurists from Islamic tradition and 2) modern scholars of language and hermeneutics such as Firth, Wittgenstein, Malinowski, and Gadamer from modern times.

One of the pivotal issues in contemporary philosophy of language is the nature of linguistic meaning: what is it in virtue of which a word or a phrase has a specific linguistic meaning it actually does? A foundational theory of meaning aims to provide a systematic answer to this question. Although this question has not been explicitly raised in Shiite uṣūl al-fiqh, the uṣūlīs have long been concerned with a related problem, namely, the nature of convention (waḍʿ), and have proposed several theories in this regard. It seems that by “waḍʿ,” the uṣūlīs mean (at least implicitly) the process or condition that bestows words and phrases with their meanings. Thus, from the uṣūlīs’ theories of convention, we can infer their foundational theories of meaning, even if these theories are not explicitly formulated in uṣūl texts. One prominent uṣūlī theory of convention is the commitment (taʿahhud) theory, proposed by Nahāvandī (d. 1322), Ḥā’irī (d. 1355), Isfihānī (d. 1362), and most notably Khūʾī (d. 1413), among others. Given the close connection between the notions of convention and linguistic meaning in uṣūl al-fiqh, we can construct a foundational theory of meaning from the commitment theory of convention. At first approximation, such a theory of meaning runs as follows: Commitment Theory of Meaning: S means M in a group G if and only if the members of G are committed that whenever they intend to induce M (or induce a particular attitude relevant to M) in their audience, they utter S. This formulation is a schematic statement; depending on whether S is a word, a declarative sentence, or a non-declarative sentence, the parenthetic phrase (namely, “induce a particular attitude relevant to M”) will take a more specific form. The commitment theory of meaning is particularly interesting as it closely aligns with the basic idea of use theories of meaning, especially the intention-based theory of meaning developed by Paul Grice. In this paper, I will provide a detailed comparison between the commitment theory of meaning and the Gricean theory of meaning. I will then argue that although the commitment theory of meaning represents a significant step towards a sophisticated theory of meaning in uṣūl al-fiqh, it suffers from important problems in its accounts of both word meaning and sentence meaning. As we shall see, the Gricean theory of meaning fares better regarding at least some of these criticisms. Finally, I will tentatively propose that the notion of commitment might be employed in the context of William Alston’s theory of meaning (another form of the use theory of meaning) to shed light on the nature of illocutionary rules.

The Simulation Hypothesis, by best-selling author, renowned MIT computer scientist and Silicon Valley video game designer Rizwan Virk, explains one of the most daring and consequential theories of our time.Drawing from research and concepts from computer science, artificial intelligence, video games, quantum physics, and referencing both speculative fiction and ancient eastern spiritual texts, Virk shows how all of these traditions come together to point to the idea that we may be inside a simulated reality like the Matrix.The Simulation Hypothesis is the idea that our physical reality, far from being a solid physical universe, is part of an increasingly sophisticated video game-like simulation, where we all have multiple lives, consisting of pixels with its own internal clock run by some giant Artificial Intelligence. Simulation Theory explains some of the biggest mysteries of quantum and relativistic physics, such as quantum indeterminacy, parallel universes, and the integral nature of the speed of light.

In this second episode of the CIMS podcast, Dr Muhamemd Reza Tajri and a panel of scholars delve into the challenges Muslim societies face regarding unorthodox positions on sexuality, including the inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals and sexual diversity. The discussion explores internal challenges within Muslim communities and the added complexities for Muslim diasporic communities navigating broader societal interactions. This episode offers a thought-provoking examination of how evolving perspectives on sexuality impact traditional values, cultural identity, and religious beliefs. The Centre for Intra-Muslim Studies (CIMS) was established in 2015 to bring together Muslims from across the denominational spectrum to critically discuss ideas pertaining to Islamic theology, history, and contemporary issues affecting Muslims.

The discovery of the pulmonary transit of blood was a ground-breaking discovery in the history of the life sciences, and a prerequisite for William Harvey’s fully developed theory of blood circulation three centuries later. This book is the first attempt at understanding Ibn al-Nafīs’s anatomical discovery from within the medical and theological works of this thirteenth century physician-jurist, and his broader social, religious and intellectual contexts. Although Ibn al-Nafīs did not posit a theory of blood circulation, he nevertheless challenged the reigning Galenic and Avicennian physiological theories, and the then prevailing anatomical understandings of the heart. Far from being a happy guess, Ibn al-Nafīs’s anatomical result is rooted in an extensive re-evaluation of the reigning medical theories. Moreover, this book shows that Ibn al-Nafīs’s re-evaluation is itself a result of his engagement with post-Avicennian debates on the relationship between reason and revelation, and the rationality of traditionalist beliefs, such as bodily resurrection. Breaking new ground by showing how medicine, philosophy and theology were intertwined in the intellectual fabric of pre-modern Islamic societies, Science and Religion in Mamluk Egypt will be of interest to students and scholars of the History of Science, the History of Medicine and Islamic Studies.

On the 8th of May, The Department of Mysticism and Spirituality hosted a seminar by AMI's visiting fellow, Seyed Amir Hossein Asghari, exploring Sufism and Philosophy in Shi'i Seminaries. He examined the relationship between the School of Najaf and the School of Separation and the connection between Shi'ism, Philosophy and Sufism in the contemporary seminaries of Najaf, Mashhad, and Qom. He traced lines of spiritual heritage through teacher-student relationships to introduce the main figures in both schools and discuss lines of transmission of mystical knowledge. He also discussed the early Shi'i Sufi tradition through figures such as Kumayl b. Ziyad, Ibn Tawus, Hasan b. Hamza al-Palasi al-Shirazi, Ibn Mi'mar and Sayyid Haydar Amuli. Al-Palasi is a key figure who is understudied, and Seyed Amir Hossein spent some time explaining his background and thoughts. The seminar brought to light the effect of debates on the validity of mysticism and philosophy in the traditional seminary on the Shi'i diaspora in modern times.

This episode of the CIMS Podcast brings together a panel of Muslim scholars to deliberate on the impact of gender roles and expectations on Muslim societies. The panel discusses the extent of the truth behind allegations of women's disempowerment directed at Muslim societies and the challenges they pose. The claims of patriarchy come from outside the Muslim community as well as from within it. This podcast offers some eye-opening responses to these claims of misogyny. The Centre for Intra-Muslim Studies (CIMS) was established in 2015 to bring together Muslims from across the denominational spectrum to critically discuss ideas pertaining to Islamic theology and history.

The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on our lives prompts profound questions beyond the technical realm. While shaping the future of humanity, AI also challenges diverse worldviews, reducing rich human experiences to data analysis. This pragmatic lens can overshadow aspects of our reality, marginalizing or, at worst, destroying what isn't understood. Understanding is paramount because, in human-machine interactions, misunderstandings may harm only the vulnerable human side. With Islam being integral to many lives, its worldviews, imaginations, and values should be considered in AI development beyond simplistic pattern-recognition and statistical approaches. Therefore, it is important to consider the integration of Islamic epistemological perspectives into AI as a crucial aspect of future research.