Rational Ruling (Hukm ‘Aqli)
A rational ruling (hukm ‘aqli) is a type of ruling that requires no empirical observation to affirm or negate its truth. It encompasses self-evident or axiomatic truths that stand independently from contingent normative rulings. Such rulings are established through pure reason and logic. For instance, rational possibilities can only be deemed necessary or impossible based on contingently normative observations. A statement like “I am in Croatia” is rationally possible, but it becomes absurd if normative observation confirms that you are actually sitting in front of me in Toronto. This example illustrates how rational rulings operate in the realm of abstract logic, while their contextual application is guided by empirical verification.
Three Types of Rational Rulings
Rational rulings (hukm ‘aqli) can be classified into three distinct types based on their logical nature:
- Necessary (wajib).
- Possible (ja’iz).
- Impossible (mustahil).
The first type is Necessary (wajib), which refers to propositions that do not admit negation; these statements must always be true. The second type is Possible (ja’iz), which accepts both negation and affirmation, meaning that such propositions can be either true or false depending on the context. The third type is Impossible (mustahil), which refers to propositions that do not admit affirmation; these statements must always be false. This classification helps in understanding and categorizing statements based on their logical coherence and necessity.
Islamic Position on Causality
In Islamic thought, the observation of events does not inherently establish a true basis for causality. This means that witnessing something occur in conjunction with another event does not intrinsically indicate that one causes the other. Ultimate causality is attributed solely to Allah, as there is no ability or power inherent in anything other than what Allah has ordained. Consequently, much of what we observe may not be entirely as it seems. One may or may not witness the relationship between two things, but this witness does not necessarily grant understanding of the actual cause behind it. For instance, consider the question, “Does a knife cut?” There are three possible perspectives on this: Legally (Shariah), it is permissible to cut with a knife; Normatively, we all observe that knives cut and thus assume that knives can cut; Rationally, it is possible that a knife cuts. These distinctions illustrate that while normative and legal observations suggest a function or permission, the ultimate causality remains with Allah, highlighting the importance of divine omnipotence in understanding true causation.