Before explaining the relevant concepts, it’s beneficial to highlight one point: The topic of causality is one of the most controversial and debated subjects in Islamic thought history. Significant debates have occurred, particularly between Sunni theologians and Islamic philosophers. While Imam Ghazali, in his work “The Incoherence of the Philosophers,” levied substantial criticisms against philosophers’ causality views, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) criticized Imam Ghazali’s views on the subject in his work “The Incoherence of the Incoherence.” Today, discussions around the topic continue to be lively within both scientific and religious circles, with some scholars and academics directing criticisms at the Sunni scholars’ theory of causality.
We will evaluate these later. However, it should be said that, as far as we can see, a significant reason for the mutual criticisms, which sometimes escalate to accusations and allegations, is the confusion of concepts. The meanings that researchers attribute to the concepts of cause and causality can change depending on their worldviews, the theory of causality they advocate, and their approach to the subject.
Furthermore, the use of vastly different concepts in explaining the subject and the nuances considered by those using these concepts can complicate the clarification of defended views. For example, while one might use the term “cause” in the sense of an apparent/metaphorical cause or a means, another might mean the actual cause or the agent/active reason. For some, the principle of causality might signify a necessary relationship between cause and effect, while others might understand it as a correlation between cause and effect or God’s habit of creation.
When speaking of determinism, the meaning intended is more or less clear, but different qualifiers like absolute, conditional, hard, soft, strict can be added in front of determinism based on the advocated theory of causality. The entry of the subject into the domains of different disciplines like physics, chemistry, biology, economics, history, sociology, religion, philosophy, and each discipline’s approach to the principle of causality with its unique methods also leads to existing differences in views.
It is beneficial for those studying the subject to keep these considerations in mind. After this brief reminder, we can now move on to explain the related concepts.
Cause/Reason In modern usage, the term “reason” is often used, but in Islamic literature, the terms “cause” and “reason” have been more commonly used. Jurjani defines reason as something upon which the existence of a thing depends and which affects it from outside. Some have thought of reason only as a motivating cause, while others have said that it is also a cause that brings something into existence.
Ahmed Cevdet Pasha gives the following meanings to the concept of cause: “A thing or condition capable of changing something, causing a phenomenon or event to occur, the creative factor; something that brings forth another, without which the latter could not possibly exist; the thing, situation, event, or phenomenon from which a consequence necessarily follows, the sufficient condition for an event’s occurrence; the agent or event that applies force and causes change.” (Philosophy Dictionary, p. 1142)
Every being, every event, and every movement we see or experience every day has a cause. For example, the cause of breaking a glass is the stone hitting it, the cause of our hand hurting is hitting it against a wall, the cause of getting sick is exposure to the cold, the cause of an earthquake is the fracture of a fault line, the cause of a ball’s movement on a billiard table is another ball hitting it, the cause of a ball slowing down and eventually stopping is the force of friction, the cause of the Earth’s movement around the sun on an axis is the gravitational force of the sun.
Most beings and events do not have a single cause. In some cases, the relationship between cause and effect can be quite complex. Therefore, identifying causal relationships is not as straightforward as it seems. For example, consider a cigarette thrown into a house causing a fire. We think of the cigarette as the cause of the fire. However, a cigarette alone is not sufficient for a fire to start. Flammable materials must be present in the house, and there must be enough oxygen in the environment. Explaining events such as the growth of a plant or the birth of a child through causal links is much more complex.
On the other hand, most beings or events are named causes as long as they have an effect, and effects as long as they have a cause. Often, an event is the cause of one thing and the result of another. For example, consider a driver falling asleep, hitting a person with a car, and the person dying. The collision is the cause of death and the result of dozing off. Similarly, dozing off can be the cause of the collision and the result of another cause, such as excessive fatigue. Likewise, rain is the result of atmospheric movements but also the cause of plant growth.
Aristotle’s Four Causes Theory Aristotle put forth that there are four causes/reasons for the emergence of any being, event, or the universe as a whole, and his view has been used by Islamic philosophers and theologians, where it has been examined with an intensity and depth not found in Aristotle. These four causes are: material cause, formal cause, efficient (agent) cause, and final cause.
Explaining these four causes using a statue as an example; the material from which the statue is made is the material cause, the shape and form it acquires is the formal cause, the artist who carves and shapes the marble is the efficient cause, and the purpose that motivates the artist to make the statue is the final cause. Because a statue cannot come into existence without a stone or marble to be carved. It does not become a statue until it acquires the necessary shape and form. Without an agent to carve and shape the marble, we cannot speak of a statue. And finally, an artist does not undertake the making of a statue without a purpose. Therefore, all four causes are effective in the emergence of the statue.
The first two (material and formal causes) are called internal causes, and the last two (efficient and final causes) are called external causes. Agent and final causes are more related to the metaphysical domain. Philosophers have considered the efficient cause as the cause of existence and the final cause as the cause of the cause of existence. That is, the final cause is the reason through which existence emerges. Nowadays, when we speak of cause, we mostly understand the efficient/agent cause, and discussions are conducted on this basis.
In addition to Aristotle’s categorization, it should be mentioned that other classifications have been made regarding the cause, such as immanent/transcendent, proximate/distant, real/metaphorical, direct/indirect, specific/general.
Principle of Causality Causality means the relationship between two events or phenomena, where one cannot occur without the other along the temporal line. Whenever the first event, seen as the cause/reason, occurs, the second event, named as the effect/result, also occurs. The principle of causality says that every being, every event, or every situation has a cause, nothing in nature exists without a cause, and if we know the causes, we can also know the outcomes.
According to this principle, everything in the universe has a cause. Every effect is based on a cause. The same causes under the same conditions produce the same results. The principle of causality helps us understand how beings and events affect each other. This principle is based on the regularity of nature.
The existence of a order in nature, certain events following others, is accepted by almost everyone because it is an observable phenomenon. Everyone knows that when the sun comes out, the air warms up. Metals expand when heated. An object in the air falls to the ground when released. Water begins to boil when it reaches a hundred degrees. Or the same causes are applied to achieve specific results. A person who wants to harvest from their field sows seeds. A hungry person eats to satisfy their hunger. A sick person uses medicine to find a cure.
Likewise, weather forecasts are published, predictions about earthquakes are made, and efforts are made to control global warming and climate changes based on the principle of causality. Although not to the extent of natural sciences, the causality relationship also shows its effect in social sciences. For example, it is impossible to fight wars, economic crises, hunger, and poverty, or to bring prosperity, abundance, social peace, and tranquility to a country without adhering to the principle of causality (cause-effect suitability). Because all these are events that will emerge as a result of correctly diagnosing the causes and adhering to them.
We know there is regularity in nature, certain events follow others, and we live our lives accordingly. Causality is the most fundamental bond in the universe. Therefore, David Hume calls it “the cement of the universe.” If this principle and order are denied, everything becomes possible. Generalizations cannot be made, laws cannot be set, predictions cannot be made, scientific activities cannot be conducted, and new technologies cannot be developed. Moreover, moral responsibility cannot be discussed. Because in this case, there is no way to link our intentions and thoughts to our actions, and our actions to their results. (See S. Mumford, R. L. Anjum, Causation-A Very Short Introduction, pp. 1-2)
Scientists have closely examined the cause-effect relationships between events, provided detailed explanations, and developed different theories. Whether temporal precedence and spatial proximity between cause and effect are necessary, whether simultaneous causality is possible, whether causal relationships can be reversed, i.e., whether there is symmetry between cause and effect, what kind of connection must exist between a thing to be named as a cause and its effect, and how the cause affects the outcome are subjects that enter the realm of science and continue to be researched by scientists.
The main topic of discussion conducted by philosophers and theologians is the basis and nature of the relationship between two events. For the majority of philosophers and physicists, the relationship between causes and effects is objective, fixed, and necessary. It is ontological, not epistemological. That is, it arises not from human mind and knowledge, but from the very nature of being itself. Causes have the power and ability to bring about effects. Causes are the agent/efficient reasons for the resulting works. The cause of change and movement should be sought not in the metaphysical realm, but in the physical world; not outside of them, but within. This approach is called empirical causality and sometimes determinism.
Determinists like Laplace and Poisson, who adopt a strict interpretation of determinism, take the matter a step further, stating that all events in the universe, including human actions, are necessarily determined by preceding events. In this case, there is no room for human freedom. According to this view, all future events are predetermined from the beginning. The current state of the universe is the necessary consequence of its previous state and the cause of the next. The emergence of a different situation is impossible. Whether we know it or not, all future events have been determined as a result of today’s events. This view is also seen as “materialist fatalism.”
Determinism In old Ottoman, determinism was expressed with concepts such as “icabiyye,” “vücûbiyye,” “zarûriyye,” “muayyeniyet.” Its Arabic equivalent is “hatmiyye.” In contemporary Turkish, it is translated as determinism or necessity. According to determinism, every event in the universe emerges as the necessary result of material or spiritual causes. The main topic of discussion is whether the cause necessarily requires the result, whether the bond between cause and effect is necessary. The concept of determinism not only expresses the causality relationship but also the necessity in this relationship. (DÄ°A, “Determinism”)
Causality, in its simplest expression, says that every result has a cause. Whether the relationship between cause and effect is necessary varies according to the interpretation of causality. Determinism is interpreted within the framework of the idea of necessity. That is, the existence of the cause necessarily makes the existence of the result, and its absence also necessarily makes its absence. Those who do not accept this necessity are called indeterminists. Indeed, some express whether they accept this idea of necessity by adding qualifiers like “absolute/compulsory” or “conditional” before determinism. The concepts of “el-illiyye” and “es-sebebiyye” (causality and causation) used in Islamic theology or philosophy are closely related to both the idea of causality and determinism.
Equating causality with determinism presents a mechanical worldview. In this world, including living beings, everything emerges as the result of material processes, physical forces, and the laws of nature. There is no room for intervention from outside the world of being. Therefore, miracles also find no place in such a world. Moreover, in a deterministic world, there is no room for free will. Since everything has a cause and every event is a link in the chain of causes, our decisions, choices, and actions must also emerge as the result of certain causes. It is not science itself that is at odds with religions, but this naturalist interpretation. Those who claim there is a conflict between religion and science are the ones who practice science with a deterministic, naturalist, and positivist philosophy.
However, to reject from the outset the possibility of transcendent and metaphysical reasons behind the visible world of being, to believe in naturalism and positivism as a prior assumption, means that we observe certain results following certain causes, certain events having a correlation (sequence) between them, but we cannot observe the nature of the relationship between them. That is, whether the apparent causes are the real reasons is told to us not by science but by our habits and beliefs. It should be stated here that humanity can only know the truth of causes and their metaphysical dimension through the guidance of revelation, a transcendent source of knowledge.
Before moving on to the interpretations of the principle of causality by Islamic scholars, we want to mention the views of Western philosophers and scientists who criticize or completely oppose the deterministic understanding of the universe. We know that the mechanical universe depicted by the naturalist approach has no place for the Creator, and such an understanding is contrary to the worldview taught to us by divine revelation. But not only through revelation, significant criticisms and objections to determinism have also been raised based on observation and reason by both Islamic scholars and Western researchers. We will examine these views in the next article for a better understanding of the matter.
