سببیت کا اسلامی تصور بمقابلہ ڈیوڈ ہیوم: ایک تقابلی جائزہ

Concept of Causation: A comparative study of David Hume and Islamic Theologists

Abstract

The concept of causation is very important concept for understanding the universe and its incidents. The relative order and predictability of the world seem founded on its casual connections. Causation is one of the most basic and primitive ideas of philosophy. Both religious and non-religious philosophers wrote about causation. They gave different interpretations of this phenomena. In our article we shall discuss and compare the concept of two different groups: one of them is extremely religious and the other is non-religious and skeptic. We mean David Hume and Islamic theologists like Ghazali, Aamidi, Baydavi, and Aalosi. Hume gave us a constant conjunction account instead of causation. He was skeptic about the necessary connection between cause and effect. Islamic theologists also deny the very necessity of causation. But their approach is completely different to the unnecessity. Hume approached to unnecessity by his skeptic and empiricist epistemology. Islamic theologists deny necessity of causation because of their religious epistemology.

It is very interesting to compare the two very different ideas and search for some similarity despite the difference in their initial basics. In this article we shall discuss the concept of Scottish philosopher David Hume and the two schools of Islamic theology: Ash’ari school and Maturidi school. Hume suggested that what we consider causal relationships are merely the result of habit and expectations. On the other hand, Islamic theologists emphasized divine causality and the role of God as the ultimate cause in the universe. This study explores the epistemological and metaphysical foundations for the both perspectives. Through this analysis the article seeks to illuminate the philosophical implications of causation and its significance in both religious and secular contexts.