A Corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ Misreading of Aquinas’ Philosophy in his Book, “Islam and Secularism”

Note: This post was earlier published as an appendix to the post, Link –  The Primacy of “Existence” over “Essence” : A Foundational Principle of Christian “Existential” Philosophy.

Our exposition of Aquinas’ thesis on the primacy of existence over essence provides a corrective to Malaysia’s premier philosopher, Naquib al-Attas, who claims that Aquinas’ misguided notion of distinction between existence and essence led to the development of nominalism (or Ockhamism) which denies the ontological reality of universals and asserts that universals are merely names (nomina) or abstract concepts.1Strictly speaking, Ockham’s view should be described as conceptualism rather than nominalism. Nominalism denies the real existence of universals; universals are merely names or conventional linguistic constructs. Conceptualism also rejects universals as existing independently in the external world. They are mental constructs or representations based on similarities or shared features observed among individual objects. Note that the mind plays an active role in forming universals by abstracting common features. Conceptualism represents the middle ground between realism (which posits independently existing universals) and nominalism (which denies the ontological or epistemological significance of universals entirely). However, the boundary between conceptualism to nominalism is blurr, given the proximity between language and mental concepts. Hence the suggestion that Ockham view be described as “conceptualist nominalism”. This denial results not only in doubts about the existence of objects but also the existence of God and ultimately gives birth to Western secularism.2Note that Naquib asserts that Aquinas’ distinction of essence or quiddity from existence is based on a misunderstanding of Avicenna’s position since for medieval Islamic philosophers, essence and existence are not radically separated; rather, they are unified in a manner that reflects the interconnectedness of all creation with the Creator. However, the fact remains that existence for Avicenna (as he was read by Western philosophers in the 13th century) is not a constituent of the essence of anything, that is, existence is an accessory accident which must be conferred upon a thing by an external cause in order that it may exist. The validity of historical interpretation of Avicenna may remain an open question, but the logical implications of Avicenna’s view as understood then were correctly drawn out by Aquinas. Naquib writes, Continue reading “A Corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ Misreading of Aquinas’ Philosophy in his Book, “Islam and Secularism””

  • 1
    Strictly speaking, Ockham’s view should be described as conceptualism rather than nominalism. Nominalism denies the real existence of universals; universals are merely names or conventional linguistic constructs. Conceptualism also rejects universals as existing independently in the external world. They are mental constructs or representations based on similarities or shared features observed among individual objects. Note that the mind plays an active role in forming universals by abstracting common features. Conceptualism represents the middle ground between realism (which posits independently existing universals) and nominalism (which denies the ontological or epistemological significance of universals entirely). However, the boundary between conceptualism to nominalism is blurr, given the proximity between language and mental concepts. Hence the suggestion that Ockham view be described as “conceptualist nominalism”.
  • 2
    Note that Naquib asserts that Aquinas’ distinction of essence or quiddity from existence is based on a misunderstanding of Avicenna’s position since for medieval Islamic philosophers, essence and existence are not radically separated; rather, they are unified in a manner that reflects the interconnectedness of all creation with the Creator. However, the fact remains that existence for Avicenna (as he was read by Western philosophers in the 13th century) is not a constituent of the essence of anything, that is, existence is an accessory accident which must be conferred upon a thing by an external cause in order that it may exist. The validity of historical interpretation of Avicenna may remain an open question, but the logical implications of Avicenna’s view as understood then were correctly drawn out by Aquinas.

The Primacy of “Existence” over “Essence”: A Foundational Principle of Christian “Existential” Philosophy

Note also the appendix: A corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ misreading of Aquinas’ philosophy in his book, Islam and Secularism.

A. Definition of terms “Existence” and “Essence”
In classical metaphysics, “essence” refers to what a thing is – its defining characteristics or nature. “Existence,” on the other hand, refers to the fact that a thing is – its actuality or the act of being.1 F.C. Copleston gives a careful explanation of the distinction and relationship between “essence” and “existence”: “Essence is that which answers the question what a thing is; it is substance considered as definable…Existence, on the other hand, is the act by which an essence or substance is or has being…Essence is the potential metaphysical component in a thing (it is that which is or has being, the quod est), while existence is the act by which essence has being (it is the quo est). This distinction is not, be it noted, a physical distinction between two separable things; it is a metaphysical distinction within a thing… And inasmuch as the substance, considered as essence, is that which has being, that of which we say that it exists, it can be said to ‘receive’ existence. But these ways of speaking are not meant to imply either that existence is something apart from an essence or that an essence has objective reality apart from existence. The distinction between them is a distinction within a concrete finite being” F.C. Copleston, Aquinas (Penguin, 1955, 1975), p. 101. Etienne Gilson notes that philosophers who were influenced by Greek philosophy treated essence as primary, with existence being a secondary or accidental attribute. Gilson critiques Platonic-Aristotelian and medieval Islamic philosophers like Avicenna and modern rationalist philosophers like Descartes and Kant for subordinating existence to essence.

Étienne Gilson’s book,  The Elements of Christian Philosophy (Doubleday, 1960) offers a lucid exposition of his argument that “existence” (esse) is more fundamental than “essence” (essentia) within the framework of Thomistic thought which Gilson deploys to critique of certain trends in medieval and modern philosophy. For Gilson, Aquinas’s insight was revolutionary because it inverted the traditional emphasis on essence. Gilson lays out his argument that existence is more fundamental than essence in his book, The Elements of Christian Philosophy. Continue reading “The Primacy of “Existence” over “Essence”: A Foundational Principle of Christian “Existential” Philosophy”

  • 1
    F.C. Copleston gives a careful explanation of the distinction and relationship between “essence” and “existence”: “Essence is that which answers the question what a thing is; it is substance considered as definable…Existence, on the other hand, is the act by which an essence or substance is or has being…Essence is the potential metaphysical component in a thing (it is that which is or has being, the quod est), while existence is the act by which essence has being (it is the quo est). This distinction is not, be it noted, a physical distinction between two separable things; it is a metaphysical distinction within a thing… And inasmuch as the substance, considered as essence, is that which has being, that of which we say that it exists, it can be said to ‘receive’ existence. But these ways of speaking are not meant to imply either that existence is something apart from an essence or that an essence has objective reality apart from existence. The distinction between them is a distinction within a concrete finite being” F.C. Copleston, Aquinas (Penguin, 1955, 1975), p. 101.

Recommended Books on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. BADR Part 12/12

Recommended Books on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. BADR Part 12/12

Selected Bibliography on Biblical Anthropology, Death and Resurrection
1) Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament. Fortress, 1973.
2) Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image. Eerdmans, 1986.
3) John Cooper. Body, Soul and Life Everlasting. Eerdmans, 2000.
4) Gary Habermas & Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Christ. Kregel, 2004.
5) G.E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Eerdmans, 1975.
6) John Wenham. The Easter Enigma. Zondervan, 1984.
7) Murray Harris, From Grave to Glory. Zondervan, 1990.

ANNOUNCEMENT
Kairos Podcast will be taking a break until March 2025. It will resume with a 5-parts podcast series on Homosexual Practice and the LGBT Sexual Revolution: Biblical & Sociological Perspectives.

The Eternal Significance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. BADR Part 11

The Eternal Significance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. BADR Part 11

Question: How does the nature of Jesus’ resurrected body shed light on the final transformed bodies of believers in the final days?

A. 1 Cor. 15 – Christ’s [Last Adam]*** resurrection as first fruits – In a twinkling we shall receive our glorified body like Jesus – imperishable and immortal.

Paul on the “spiritual body” – The apostle does not speak of a bodily spirit, but a spiritual body. A spiritual body is a resurrected physical body with greater capacities as an instrument of the Holy Spirit. Among its new powers are those of being incorruptible and giving life (v. 45).

1) Incorruptible– It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption (1 Cor. 15:42). For this corruptible must put on incorruption (1 Cor. 15:53).
2) Glorious – It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory (1 Corinthians 15:43).
3) Powerful – It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power (1 Corinthians 15:43). The believer will have permanent invigoration, unsurpassed beauty, and endless energy.
4) Spiritual – It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44) – In the resurrection the believer will have a body perfectly responsive to his redeemed spirit which in turn will be completely amenable to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It will be spiritual also in that it is free of sinful propensities and without physical vulnerabilities & limitations [hyperspace teleport?].

B. Sum: Like the resurrected Jesus Christ, our transformed bodies will be corporeal, recognizable, immortal, imperishable, glorified.

Public Caning of Man for Khalwat Violates Federal, Shariah Laws

G25: Khalwat offenders are not criminals, public whipping violates Federal Constitution, Syariah courts

by Imran Hilmi, The Star. 24/12/2024

KUALA LUMPUR: Criminalising personal behaviour violates human rights and the fundamental liberties guaranteed under the Federal Constitution, says the group of prominent retired civil servants G25.

“We in G25 respectfully appeal to the Federal Government and the Conference of Rulers to take the progressive stand that it is wrong for state governments, via their respective state Syariah Enactments, to criminalise the moral sins of Muslims and to mete out cruel forms of punishment against them,” the group said in a statement on Sunday (Dec 22).

This is in response to the Terengganu Syariah Appeal Court’s decision to uphold the Syariah High Court’s sentence of public whipping for Affendi Awang’s khalwat (close proximity) offence. Continue reading “Public Caning of Man for Khalwat Violates Federal, Shariah Laws”

Encounters With the Risen Christ and the Nature of His Resurrected Body. BADR Part 10

Encounters With the Risen Christ and the Nature of His Resurrected Body. BADR Part 10

Question. What is the nature of appearances of the risen Jesus and the nature of his resurrected body?

A. Nature of the Appearances
The initiative in the resurrection appearances always rested with Jesus.
They occurred to several individuals. Some appearances were to a single person; one was to a group of five hundred. They are reported to have taken place during a very specific period of forty days.

Ophthe, which means “he appeared.” This term probably implies seeing something which was objectively present outside the mind of the observer. Phaneroo, “reveal,” as in John 21:1, “Jesus revealed himself”; Harao, in its aorist passive form ophthe – permitted to become visible (Acts 1:3a), (“God permitted him) to become visible” (Acts 10:40).

The writers of the Gospels and Paul agree that Jesus appeared in bodily form. But Jesus’ body is no longer bound by space & time. Finally, there was a continuity between Christ’s body before the resurrection and his mode of existence after the resurrection.

B. Nature of Christ’s Resurrection Body
His body made impressions on physical senses.
Jesus’ body is no longer bound by material or spatial limitations. It has new powers diff. from his earlier, natural body. It belongs to a different order of reality. Jesus’ body is both materialistic and non-materialistic.

You may view the video at:
Encounters With the Risen Christ and the Nature of His Resurrected Body. BADR 10

Is the Trinity Monotheism? Dr. Ali Ataie vs. Dr. Joshua Sijuwade. A Debate hosted by Blogging Theology

Debate: Is the Trinity Monotheism?

Joshua Sijuwade’s philosophical model of the Trinity is sophisticated and impressive. His analytical model of the Trinity is logically coherent, but as any logician or mathematician knows, one can always construct a consistent philosophical (or mathematical) system based on a chosen set of definitions, assumptions or axioms (so long as it does not claim completeness). More importantly, theoretical models, however sophisticated or coherent, must be grounded in historical reality and divine revelation. In this regard, viewers of the debate need to be convinced that Sijuwade’s splendid system of philosophical trinitarianism is consistent with biblical revelation and the Trinitarian doctrine which was framed in the Nicene Creed (AD 325, 381).

Ali Ataie suggests that the chart or Trinitarian scheme presented by Sijuwade is a form of Sabellianism. He also refers to Origen to suggest that Sijuwade’s monarchical model is not exactly (classical) Trinitarian since his model implies that only the Father has aseity, but not the Son or the Holy Spirit. Even then the Father’s aseity is not intrinsic (which is evidence that Ali does not fully understand the meaning of such a fundamental concept as aseity). Ali even argues that the Father cannot be fundamental since his identity as Father is dependent on another person outside of himself. Sijuwade needs demonstrate how Ali’s misrepresentation and concerns were already addressed by the theological concepts used in the Nicene formulation of the Trinity such as “substance and persons” (subsistent relations) within the Trinity, eternal generation of the Son, perichoresis, divine persons and missions etc. and show how his philosophical model of the Trinity is consistent with the “grammar” of Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Since Sijuwade did not ground his abstract Trinitarian model on the history of the Nicene Trinitarian debate and later Christian trinitarian tradition, he was easily (or deliberately) misunderstood to be defending neither the foundational monotheism of the Bible nor the Trinitarian implicate of the incarnational revelation of Christ. Ali shrewdly exploited the lacuna in Sijuwade’s presentation to undermine his argument. Continue reading “Is the Trinity Monotheism? Dr. Ali Ataie vs. Dr. Joshua Sijuwade. A Debate hosted by Blogging Theology”

Basic Facts about the Virgin Birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke

[I believe] in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit; Born of the Virgin Mary. The Apostles’ Creed.

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). Matthew 1:23

Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus (Matt. 1:18, 25; Lk. 1:27, 34) and he was conceived through the special work of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20; Lk. 1:35).

How could Mary have a child if she did not yet have a husband and the sexual intimacy that comes with marriage? The biblical response is that God caused the pregnancy and that nothing is impossible with God (Lk. 1:37). This simple phrase nicely summarizes the crux of the debate about the credibility of the virginal conception. A person’s belief or unbelief in the virginal conception rests chiefly on whether they believe in God and his ability to create life in whatever manner he chooses. Accordingly, people often reject the virginal conception because of presuppositions that doubt or limit God’s activity in the world… Continue reading “Basic Facts about the Virgin Birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke”

Supplementary Maps and Charts for Kairos Podcast on Harmonizing the Resurrection Accounts BADR9

The above PowerPoint the supplementary document for Kairos Video Podcast –
Harmonizing Alleged Discrepancies Between the Resurrection Accounts of the Four Gospels. BADR 9

Identity in Christ and the Moral Witness of the Church

Social engagement has become acceptable in many conservative churches today. But social engagement in the ideologically crowded space of civil society is inherently contentious. The danger arises when Christians, in their eagerness to be “relevant” and to be accepted by wider society, end up following an agenda set by other social activists. Luke Bretherton identifies three processes whereby society may domesticate the church: 1) co-option – the church becoming a client of state patronage, 2) competition – the church is reduced to just another player in identity politics, pursuing its own religious rights, 3) commodification – the market construes the church as a product of consumption as Christianity becomes simply another privatized lifestyle choice.1Luke Bretherton, Christianity and Contemporary Politics (Blackwell, 2010), pp. 1-2. Instead of allowing the church to be swept along by fashionable social tides, Christian activists must clearly focus on social priorities determined by Christian values. However, Christian values will remain as ‘ghostly’ abstractions unless they are embodied in a community. Hence, social engagement needs to go beyond mere discussion on personal values and focus more on how Christian values are exemplified in a Christian community. Continue reading “Identity in Christ and the Moral Witness of the Church”

  • 1
    Luke Bretherton, Christianity and Contemporary Politics (Blackwell, 2010), pp. 1-2.