The Relation Between Ontology and Epistemology in Islamic Legal Thought

Abstract

Islamic legal thought was formed by the combination of both kalam and jurisprudence. Scholars assume that both disciplines are interdependent. For them, the reason why kalam and jurisprudence are interdependent is that the main purpose of both disciplines is to justify religion. Many topics will become meaningless if one does not take this into account. In the period of mutaqaddimūn, the purpose of proceduralist was not only to deduce the decree from the nass, but to prove its credibility first. For this purpose, sects have built a theory of judgment with an epistemological basis in accordance with the ontological structure they have adopted in kalam. With the theory of husn-qubh especially, the decrees were associated with an ontological structure and an epistemological basis was formed in which this principle could be placed. The basis of this structure is the classification of obligatory, possible, and impossible. This structure makes it possible to understand the pre-shar' rules within reason and to measure the rationality of the post-shar' rules. This method became identified with the Muʿtazila in time. This study tries to explain that the classification of existence as obligatory, possible and impossible is an important criterion in the comprehension of decrees. In this context, we will discuss the views of the early Ahl al-Raʾy and Ashʿarīs about the status of reason in the face of revelation, and we will examine the debate on reason’s comprehension of religious decrees on a different plane.