1

Ibn Sinas Islamization of Aristotles Concept of God

By. Dr. Hamid Fahmy Zarkasyi
Introduction
The concept of God in Islam is the key element of Islamic doctrine and become the core
of theological and philosophical discourse. Due to the universality of the concept, the Muslim
philosophers tried to interpret, explain and clarify in their respective ways (ijtihd). Some by
referring the very sources of Islam, i.e. Quran and Hadith, whereas others interpret the
concept by adapting or borrowing the concept of other cultures. Ibn Sina was one of Muslim
philosophers who carried out the former kind of endeavor. It implies the activity of
transformation of thought involving reformulation and adjustment procedure that would
certainly result in the alternation, if not deviation of the original thought. Therefore, it is not
surprising that Ibn Sinas concept of God, according to Netton is mis-statement of Greek
thought.1 Ibn Sinas concept is originally his own and has gone beyond Aristotles, says
Davidson.2 In similar tone Goichon rightly regards Ibn Sina as shedding a flood of light on
Aristotles text and develops Aristotles thought.3 Joseph Owen bluntly admits that
Avicennas fresh look at Aristotle notion of being is Islamic motivation or Islamic
approach.4 All those comment are nothing more than a proof that Ibn Sina has carried out the
process of assimilation, or in our present terms, Islamization of Aristotles concept of God in
particular and metaphysics in general. Oliver Leaman notes that the assimilation of foreign
element in Islamic thought is subject to the process of Islamization, 5 yet this concept was
subject to refinement or further Islamization process in later period. This article delineates Ibn
Sinas attempt to Islamize Aristotles concept of God.
1

Netton, Ian Richard, Allah Transcendence, London: Routledge, 1989, 149.

Herbert A Davidson, Avicennas Proof of the Existence of God as Necessarily Existent Being, in Parviz

Morewedge, Islamic Philosophy and Theology, New York, Albany: SUNY Press, 1979, 180.
Goichon, A.M. The Philosopher of Being in Avicenna Commemoration Volume, Calcutta, Iran Society,

4
5

1956. 109.
Joseph Owens, C.Ss.R, The Relevance of Avicennian Neoplatonism, in Parviz Morewedge, ed.

Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought, New York, SUNY Press, 43

Leaman, Oliver, An Introduction to mediaval Islamic Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985, 6.

We shall restrict our discussion on some major points where Ibn Sina attempted to
Islamize Aristotles concept of God. It is because at certain point Ibn Sina is not too much at
variance with Aristotle or even still Aristotelian and Neoplatonist. The point of our present
discourse will include his alternation of Aristotles subject matter of metaphysics, his proofs
for existence of God and the nature of God. In the last point we shall look from the doctrine of
causality and the personality as well as the unity of God.
On the subject matter
Ibn Sinas alternation of Aristotles subject matter of metaphysics marks the
fundamental differences in their understanding the spiritual, intelligible and material realities.
Ibn Sina ameliorate this point in the beginning of his Ilhiyt

as if he laid down the

foundation of his discourse. There are threefold divisions at the content of Aristotles
metaphysics, they are the existing entities in so far as they exist, the first principle of
demonstration and the non-corporeal entities.6 However, in his formal definition of First
Philosophy Aristotle confines its subject matter in three specific notion 1) the first principle
and causes of things (Met. 1.981b 25ff), 2) the things which exists separately and are
immovable (Met. 6.1026a 15) and 3) being qua being, both what it is and the attribute which
belong to it (Met. 6.1026a 30). The term being here is in the category of primary substance.
Since there are different kind of primary substances Aristotle designated that the subject
matter or the objects of discourse of metaphysics or theology is the study of separate but
unchanging substance, in which God is the outstanding case.7
Ibn Sina in the same line with Aristotle regards theology as science that deals with
entities, which are separable from matter or primary causes of both physical and mathematical
reality as well as the Cause of all causes (al-mawjd al-mall ) or the Principle of all
principle, namely God.8 However, Ibn Sina does not in opinion that God, the Supreme Being,

Aristotle, Metaphysics, Translated by Richard Hope, The University of Michigan Press, 1969, 4 10026a 30; 4

1005b, 5-7, 12. . Hereinafter cited as Metaphysics.

Metaphysics, 6.1.1026a27-32. In the beginning of Book Lambda,

the immovable substance is identified as

one of that primary substance which are regarded the first of existing thing, the other kinds are sensibleperishable and eternal sensible substance. See Metaphysics, 1069a19-26.
8
Ibn Sna, Al-Shiaf, al-Ilhiyt, ed. Qanawti and Sad Zayd, Cairo: al-Hayah al-mmah li shun alMabi al-Amriyyah, 1960, vol. I, 4. Hereinafter cited as al-Shif

as the subject matter of metaphysics or theology.9 Its subject matter is the existing entity (almawjd) in so far as it exists. Ibn Sinas principle thesis here is that the subject matter of any
science must be already given as a postulate, prior to the investigation of its nature and
attributes. Besides, he holds that no branch of knowledge can demonstrate the existence of its
own subject matter. Therefore, he distinguishes between the subject matter (mau) of
metaphysics and its objective (malb). Thus, the subject matter is al-mawjd bim huwa
mawjd,10 (being qua being) or existing entity (al-mawjd ) in so far as it exists, and its
objective is God.
The focal point in the above alternation is that Ibn Sina defines the subject matter of
metaphysics strictly in ontological terms. His most radical departure from Aristotle is
discernable from his doctrine of causality that we will discuss later, where he clearly
differentiates between physical and metaphysical cause, on which Aristotle blurs or
overlaps.11 This alteration is intended to avoid the depiction of God from physical phenomena
so that God and His creature can clearly be distinguished. By so doing Ibn Sina come up with
the concept that demonstrate the Necessary Being. His division of being into substance and
accident is significant departure of Aristotles doctrine. In addition, his al-Shif, al-Ilhiyt is
illustrated with non-Aristotelian themes, like divine-decree, resurrection, heavenly rewards,
prophecy and others, all of them are purely Islamic subjects. This is clear indication that Ibn
Sina has change Aristotles way in understanding both spiritual and material realities.
On the existence of God
The proof for the existence of God is the core of both Aristotle and Ibn Sinas theology,
but their differences are manifest. Aristotles proof starts from a set of physical principles,
mainly motion, motion in place underlies all other kinds of change.12 Everything moved have
the cause of their motions outside themselves;13 nothing can maintain itself in motion unless it

This notion was then criticized by Ibn Taymiyyah for allowing God to be subsumed under the notion al-

mawjd including His creature. See Ibn Taymiyyah,, al-Radd al al-Mantiqiyyn, ed. R.Ajam, Beirut: Dr
al-Fikr al-Lubnn, 1993, 133-34.
10
Ibn Sina, al-Shifa: al-Ilahiyat, vol. I, 13.
11

For further detail on the distinction between Aristotle and Ibn Sina see Majid Fakhry, The Subject-Matter of

Metaphysics: Aristotle and Ibn Sina (Avicenna), in Michael E Marmura, ed.

Philosophy, New York, Albany, SUNY, 1984, 137-47
12
Aristotle, Physics, VIII, 7.
13
Ibid, 5.

Islamic Theology and


is continuously moved by an agent;14 only circular motion is continuous and eternal;15 and
only an infinite force can maintain the heavens in motion for an infinite time.16 From all those
principles Aristotle came to his final analysis that there must exist the Unmoved Mover, the
only cause of the motion in the universe.17 Here the existence of God is identified from the
physical phenomena and drawn from physical principles. Ibn Sina, in contrast, does not start
his proof from physical phenomena, but from the very existence of the universe. He left aside
all the physical argument leading up to Aristotle Unmoved Mover and begins with a fresh
concept by analyzing the existent of necessity or as he calls it Wajib al-Wujud (Necessary
Existent) and claims that this requires less premises and more certain.
The term Wajib al-Wujud is coined by Ibn Sina to establish the proof for the existence
of God, instead of Aristotle proof of physical principles. Since this concept is of Ibn Sinas
origin, Davidson regards him as the first philosopher who employed the concept of necessary
existence to prove the existence of God.18 It is a fixed expression and becomes the core of Ibn
Sinas theology (Ilahiyyat) as he reiterates in his various treatises.19 Netton identifies that Ibn
Sina employs four major methods to prove the existence of Wajib al-Wujud, they are:
metaphysical proof from necessity, proof from movements, proof from causality and proof
from ontology.
Morewedge

21

20

The proof from movement is almost the same as the proof from causality.

finds out that the concept of Wajib al-Wujud has been used in three ways:

ontological, theological and phenomenological principles. Morewedge does not mention

cosmological principles for he found that it is analyzed within the context of ontological
principle.22
In this principle Ibn Sina examines and then establishes the Wajib al-Wujud from the
existence itself, by considering the condition (l) of being and the existence in general. This
is quite different from Aristotle, who considers only one segment of existence, which is Gods
14

Ibid, 6.
Ibid, 8.
16
Ibid, 10.
17
Metaphysics, XII, 7.
18
Davidson, Herbert A, Avicennass Proof of the Existence of God.. 169.
19
His long elaboration is to be found in his Kitab al-Najat; his brief and somewhat obscure presentation is in the
Isharat wa al-Tanbihat. The full account of Wajib al-Wujud is in al-Shifa and Danish Nama, in which he
tends to be only concentrating in the nature of Wajib al-Wujud.
15

20

Netton, Ian Richard, Allah Transcendent, 173.

Morewedge, Parwiz, The Metaphysics of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), A critical translation-commentary and analysis
of the fundamental argument in Avicennas Metaphysics in the Danish Namai, alai, London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1973, See translator commentary pp. 229.
22
For the difference between ontological and cosmological argument, See Simon Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary
of Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, 85; 269.
21

creation and effect, namely motion. Although Ibn Sinas concept is still within the
Aristotelian tradition, which examine the existent qua existent and what belongs to it by
virtue of itself,23 he brilliantly applied it in different way, that is by limiting his examination
only from metaphysical principle drawn from metaphysics. In contrast, the proof for the
existence of God in Aristotles theology is drawn largely from the argument of Physics. For
this reason Ibn Sina claimed that his method is more certain and more exalted (

).24

batassssssssssssssss
As we have mentioned above that Ibn Sina examines the necessary existence from
metaphysical principles. In this regard he begins with the statement that primary concepts
cannot truly be defined.25 Definition in this sense refers to Aristotelian logic, which is formed
from genus and a specific difference already known. Since the primary concepts like existence
and thing are not subsumed under anything better known, they are not definable.

26

The

necessary, possible and impossible are of primary concepts and therefore cannot be defined
and made known in a true sense. But they, in fact, imprinted in soul in a primary fashion.27
Since the primary concepts are not definable, the definition constructed by philosophers,
in the eye of Ibn Sina, lead to vicious circle. The possible is defined in terms of either
necessary or impossible, and the necessary is either possible or impossible, while the possible
is either necessary or possible.

However, Ibn Sina tries to clarify them in ostensible

definition. The impossible, is that which is not possible to exist, or that which is necessarily
not to be; the necessary is that which is impossible not to be or not possible not to be. The
possible is that which is not impossible to be or not to be. 28 This is the only possible way to
define, but in fact not in Ibn Sinas standard.
However, although the primary concepts cannot be defined from anything better known,
Ibn Sina find a way to explain to those who do not have them imprinted in the soul. That is by
understanding the denotation of the words and by directing attention and following the
speakers intention.29 Among these three concepts (necessary, possible and impossible) the
priority should be with the necessary. It is because necessary signifies certainty of
23

Metaphysics,IV.1.1003a20-21. Cf. al-Shif, vol.1, 13.

Ibn Sina, al-Ishrt, wa al-Tanbht, ed. S.Dunya, Cairo: 1971, vol. I, 146.
25
Ibn Sina, Al-Shifa, p.35.
24

26

Ibid , p.35.
Ibid, p.28.
28
Ibid, pp.35-36
29
Ibid, p.29.
27

--


existence30 and existence is better known than the non-existence (adam) as it is known by
itself, while the non-existence is known, in some way, by existence.

By this way the

existence play role like, so to speak, the better known thing, from which anything else can be
described. Accordingly, if the necessary is signifies certainty, and existence is better known
than non-existence, the Necessary existent by reason of itself is final the result.
On the principle of Causality
We have mentioned that from the from the alteration of the subject matter of
metaphysics, the problem of causality is the crucial point that Ibn Sina come with his solution.
With reference to the Metaphysics and Physics (Book VII and VIII ) the Unmoved Mover is
not a cause within physics but a cause within the science of being qua being, that is a cause of
being.

31

Aristotle connect the physical to metaphysical proof by treating substance or being

based on the concept of change or the principle of change, which is change from potentiality
to actuality.32 Therefore, he argues that in order to cause motion its substance must be
actuality.33 Thus, Aristotles god is the ultimate cause of the physical universe. But it is
problematic that God being the First Mover is imparting motion or causing motion but itself
being unmoved. In what way does the Unmoved Mover impart motion? And what kind of
motion is it? Aristotles answer is quite clear from his statement below:
Now such a mover must impart movement as do the desirable and intelligible, which impel movement
without themselves undergoing movement. But what is primary of desire and for intelligibility is the same, for
34
what is desired is what appears good, and the primary object of rational choice is what is good.

If it is so, the Unmoved Mover causes motion in a non-physical way and it is by being
good as a final cause. Owen remarks that Aristotle describe the relation of both the heaven
and the nature with the Unmoved Mover in the order of final causality.35 But in Book VIII of
Physics 36 the flow of the argument leading up to the Unmoved Mover indicates a chain of the

30

Ibid, p.36.

31

Metaphysics, 6.1.1026a27-32.

32

Metaphysics, 12.2.1069b10-20

33

Metapysics, 12.6.1071b18-20.

34

Metaphysics, 12. 7. 1072a29-34.

35

Owen Joseph, The Doctrine of Being in Aristotle Metaphysics, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval

36

Studies, 1978, 443.

Physics, VIII, 258b10.

line of efficient causality. Perhaps this is the reason that Sir David Ross is in the opinion that
Aristotles god is the final cause and the efficient cause as well, of change. 37 Copleston38 and
Gerson

39

reject that Aristotles God as efficient physical cause. In fact, this controversy is

due to the ambiguous meaning of the term arche tes kineseos. According to Vlastos the term
arche tes kineseos is mistranslated. The term efficient cause (arche tes kineseos) can apply
to any of the four causes except the material. To limit its meaning only to efficient cause is a
flagrant translation. 40 Nevertheless, Vlastos accepts the idea of God being efficient cause on
account that when the form functions as both a final and efficient cause, it is never the form
itself, but only its actualization in some individual that perform the latter function. Now the
only way in which the form of Unmoved Mover could be actualized in an individual other
than the Unmoved Mover would be a thought in some minds other that its own. In that case it
would be only the thought of the Unmoved Mover in minds that would function as efficient
cause. The problem appear from the two different fact that on Physics the Unmoved Mover
appears to exercise efficient causality, while in Metaphysics Aristotle denies it as efficient
cause.
From this predicament we may infer that the designation of final causality for god is
perhaps adequate only within the stricture of the Metaphysics. But the problem is that to
assume that god is only a final cause would result in difficulty in seeing how being is derived
to everything else in that way required by the Metaphysics. By being a final cause God should
be a perfect example of being and not being itself. In which case the final causality of the
Unmoved Mover is not sufficient to provide the necessary relationship with everything else.
Indeed, to grasp the nature of Unmoved Mover in the sense of cause and effect is elusive, just
as it is hard to conceive god as the First Cause with direct knowable contact with the universe.
God-world relation cannot be regarded as an activity, since it is sort of influence that one
person may unconsciously have on another. Therefore, if a question were asked, whether
Aristotles god is the creator of the world, the answer is obviously negative. It is because he

37

Ross, Sir David, Aristotle, London, New York: Routledge, 1995, 186. For the notion that the Unmoved

Mover is living being refer to Aristotles notion in De Caelo 285a29 and 292a18, that that heavenly bodies
are living being.
38
Coupleston, S.J., Frederick, A History of Philosophy, London : Search Press, 1946, 315.
39

Gerson, God and Greek Philosophy , pp. 134-135.

40

Vlastos, Gregory, Studies in Greek Philosophy, vol.II, ed.Daniel W Graham, Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1995, 283-284.

holds that matter is un-generated and eternal, and even argues expressly against the creation
of the world. 41
As we have alluded above that the doctrine of causality is the point where Ibn Sina has
the most radical departure from Aristotle. The above predicament would be readily resolved if
we turn to Ibn Sinas doctrine of causality. Ibn Sina observes that the fundamental difference
between the physical and metaphysical philosophers consists in their use of the term cause or
illa. For the former, cause is efficient cause or the principle of movement, whereas for the
latter it is the principle or source of existence, primarily God. 42 Hence, Ibn Sina holds that the
investigation of the existence of God and of His nature lies outside the scope of physics
altogether and must be developed within a metaphysical framework. This thesis departed from
Aristotles procedure in Physics 8, where the existence of God is demonstrated as the Prime
Mover of the universe.
Ibn Sina holds that God is the efficient as well as the final cause in metaphysical realm.
Efficient cause, says Ibn Sina, is a cause, which bestows existence that differs from itself. 43
The efficient causality in terms of existence itself (bi hasb al-wujd binafsihi) means that
everything which is a cause of an existence different than itself becomes an efficient cause. 44
This explanation not only suggests the inclusion of the emphasis on the otherness of cause and
effect, but also the separation between efficient and final causality. In the case of God with
respect to the world, the term agent (al-fil) is not the principle of motion as Aristotle and
other natural philosophers believed, but the principle and the bestower of existence. Thus,
God is the efficient cause who bestows the existence of the entire creature including the
world. The final cause is the cause of the existence of other causes, and it precedes them in
mind and in existence, it is the Cause of the Causes (illat al-ilal).45 In this definition Ibn Sina
introduces other causes, which is the cause of the cause that end at the final cause. In Aristotle
theory of causality the causes are referred to matter and form from which thing exist.
Moreover, Ibn Sina introduces the concept of The First Cause and applies it to his
concept of the series of cause and effect to arrive at his doctrine of God as Necessary Being.
41
42

Aristotle, De Caelo, 301b31, 279b12ff.

Al-Shif, al-Ilhiyt, vol.2, 257.

43

Ibid, 257.

44
45

See Michael E Marmura, The Metaphysics of Efficient Causality in Avicenna, in Michael E Marmura

Islamic Theology and Philosophy, Albany, SUNY, 1984, 174.

Al-Shif, al-Ilhiyt, vol.1, 293-4.

In his al-Ishrt he argues that whenever there was a series of causes and effect that followed
each other, and there appeared in it a cause that was not an effect, then that series had to be
regarded as terminating in that cause. Furthermore, every such series or chain arranged
according to causes and effect had to be finite and every series end in the Being who
necessarily exist by virtue of Himself (wjib al-wujd bi-dhtihi),46 who is God. Here God is
depicted as the First Cause. This theory of causality is related to his doctrine of intellect, in
which heavens are generated by a series of intellection, each Intellect actually bestowing
existence upon that which it generates. The series of intellection represented by the hierarchy
of being in the whole cosmic process end in the Pure Being from which all thing began. Here
Ibn Sina is able to describe the process of creation from God, although he does not employ
the term as such.
Moreover, as in Aristotles natural theology the final cause face difficulty in producing
motion and deriving everything else from it, in Ibn Sina this problem is solved by his theory
of Gods knowledge. To him God necessarily knows (yaqilu) His essence by essence.
And necessarily knows what come after Him inasmuch as He is the cause of what comes after
Him and derives its existence from Him.47 His knowledge is also unlimited to time and can
therefore know about things susceptible to change without being changed Himself. This
depiction of God is sufficient to provide the necessary relationship with everything else.
So far Ibn Sina has applied the doctrine of causality to his concept of God that totally at
variance with that of Aristotles God. Ibn Sina interpreted the Aristotelian notion of first
efficient cause in metaphysics as the one God from whom all else receive being. By positing
god as efficient cause for this universe he substitutes Aristotles passive god with the idea of
the active and living god who can move everything in the universe.
On the personality and unity of God
Another point that Ibn Sina Islamizes is on the personality and unity of God, a strange
and uncommon issue in Greek philosophy, in general and Aristotle doctrine in particular. In
fact, Aristotle demonstrates serious ambiguity on this point, while Ibn Sina exhibits a definite
explanation from Islamic doctrine. In Book Lambda Aristotle briefly explains that the
individuation or the oneness of the First Mover in definition and in number is only because of
46

al-Ishrt, vol..3 26-27.

47

al-Ishrt, vol. 3, 278.


its being complete actuality, for it contains no matter.48 Here the basis of the individuation or
the unity is its being actual and immaterial. This seems to contradict his doctrine of matter and
form where the individuation of the concrete substance is found in matter, and it is matter that
mark off one individual from another. The form of each species is identical in every member
of the species and therefore cannot individuate thing. Form is not understood as a correlative
of matter any more and therefore it is totally different from the doctrine of matter and form.
Therefore, introducing god as pure form or pure substance is shifting the individuation
from matter to form. For this reason OConnor accused Aristotle as cheating his reader.49
From metaphysical viewpoint the principle of individuation relates directly to
personality and unity of God. God is already depicted as form and form in Aristotle doctrine
is universal, whereas the universal that has no particular in it cannot be individual. To connote
the individuality with personality is to seek that the universal in Aristotles metaphysics is
also individual. Halper 50 infers that Aristotle has an extended usage of both terms and proves
that it is possible for something to be both universal and individual. Aristotles concept of
universal can be referred to the way he calls the first philosophy as universal in the sense of
its being primary,

51

not in the sense of the universality of a predicate. The concept of

individual, on the other hand, is applied to species. Now if in usual usage the term individual
refers to one single matter,52 in the extended usage it refers to single form of species. If
individual is applied to species, the Unmoved Mover resembles a species in being one in
formula. If anything that is one in formula, including species, can be called universal, then the
Unmoved Mover is also universal. Besides, the thing that has no matter is numerically one.
Since the Unmoved Mover has no matter, it is numerically one. If anything that is numerically
one is, in some way, individual, then the Unmoved Mover is individual. But, Gerson disagree
to regard the Unmoved Mover as one in formula for its being a resemblance of species. It is
because all things that are many in number but one in form have matter and it is impossible to
48

Metaphysics, 12. 8.1074a35-37.

49

OConnor, D.J., A Critical History of Western Philosophy, London: The Free Press of Glenco, Collier

50

Macmillan Limited, 1964, 55.

See Edwards C Halper, One and Many in Aristotles Metaphysics, Columbus : Ohio State University Press,

51

1989, 242-244.
Metaphysics, 6.1. 1026a29-31.

52

Here Aristotle explains the notion one in many ways, such as one in form, on in kind and one by analogy.
Those numerically one has a single matter, those formally one has a single definition, those generically one
has a single pattern of classification and analogically one bear to each other the same ration or relation that
another pair has. See Metaphysics, 5. 6.1016b31-33

11

be applied for the primary substance. But he agrees with the idea that the Unmoved Mover,
being a primary substance, which has no matter and is pure actuality, is one both in form and
in number.53
However, with regard to other textual evidence it is not the case. In his Book Lambda
(1074a12) Aristotle explicitly mentions that there are fifty-five Unmoved Movers. This
indicates that Aristotle does not seem to be concerned much about the number of the god, in
which case he is definitely and exclusively polytheist. His next statements that the Unmoved
Mover is one both in definition and in number implies the same understanding as the
polytheist conceive the plurality of gods. This also means that Aristotle assumes that there is
one form of fifty-five numbers of Unmoved Movers. This can be apprehended that god is one
form of different species, who has material entity. Gerson already rejected this. In addition, in
the pure form and pure actuality the individuation is taken for granted for its being
immaterial, whereas the immaterial things such as soul, intelligence and others can have
plurality. Thus, since the immateriality does not necessarily mean individuality or unity, the
argument for the basis of individuality of Aristotles god is not cogent. So, the idea of the
unity of god in Aristotles theology is hardly conceivable unless we can affirm that he is
definitely monotheist.
Since the individuation of god can hardly be identified, the personality of the Unmoved
Mover is also vague. In his non-metaphysical work Aristotle strangely wrote a phrase that
indicates the personality of God, where god is understood as being that possesses such a kind
of consciousness. Since it is not in his Metaphysics it has also no metaphysical explanation.
He says in his Politic:
God is happy and blessed, not through any external good but in himself and because of his own natural
54
character.

From just literal understanding of the above statement we may infer provisionally that
Aristotles God is personal, who has consciousness, feeling and blessedness. But from his
other statement this seems to be not the case. Copleston finding is worth noting here.
According to him there is no indication that Aristotle understands the First Mover as an object
of worship, to whom prayer might be addressed. This argument is referring to Aristotles own
53
54

Gerson, L.P., God and Greek Philosophy,

p.168.; Cf. Scaltsas, Theodore, Substance and Universal in

Aristotle Metaphysics, Ithaca-London : Cornell University Press, 1994, 92.

As quoted by Guthrie, from Aristotle Politic, 1323b24-26. in History of Greek Philosophy: Aristotle an
Encounter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 259.

words in Magna Moralia that those are wrong who thinks that there can be a friendship
towards god, for god could not return our loves and we could not in any way be said to love
god. This implies that Aristotles god is still unable to have direct contact with his creature
with his consciousness, blessedness, mercy and the like. In a very confusing notion, Copleston
portrays god for his being an intelligent or a thought and conclude that God may not be
personal secundum nomen (according to the name), but he is personal secundum rem
(according to the entity). 55
The foregoing elaboration is just to show that the concept of the personality and unity of
Aristotles god is obscure, unclear and sometimes contradictory. On the contrary, the oneness
or the absolute unity of God is the key element in Ibn Sina theology. Ibn Sinas attempt to
introduce the absolute unity of God, in place of Aristotles God is stressed on the merge of
existence and essence. He says: The First Being has no mhiyah other than his anniya.56 This
means that God cannot be composed of anything, nor divided into anything. God is not
dependent on anything or anyone, for His existence is identical with His own essence. He
argues then that whose essence (mhiyah) is other than existence is not the Necessary
Existence. The Necessary Existent cannot have an essence as the cause of Its Existence.
It follows that the First or Necessary Being is absolutely simple, without any kind of
composition, above all of genus and specific difference. He does not belong to a class, as man
belongs to the class of animal whose essence he shares and from which he is differentiated as
a species by being rational. Since the Necessary Being is that by his essence (bidhtihi )
realizes his existence, his haqqah belong to him alone. He therefore, has no mhiyah
(quiddity). If God has mhiyah He belongs to a genus and would share the other genus or
become a part of thing in some way. The Necessary Being, however, is not something
composed.57 Thus, God that exists necessarily must have a unique essence.58 God cannot be
united to any other being or cause: for if His existence is necessarily uncaused, it clearly
cannot be linked in any way to a cause. If, on the other hand, His existence is not necessarily
uncaused He obviously cannot be considered as the Necessary Being. To support this doctrine

55

Coupleston, A History of Philosophy, 317.

56

Al-Shif, al-Ilhiyt, vol.2, 344

57

Ibid, vol.2, 347.

58

Ibid, vol.1, 43ff; cf. Al-Ishrt, vol.3, 42-43

13

Ibn Sina characterizes God with some negative notion, such as that God has cause, neither
relative, changing, multiple nor has any associate in the existence which is His own. 59
Having described the unity of God Ibn Sina characterized His personality in various
ways. In his Al-Ishrt Ibn Sina depicts God as the loved, the lover and the love and hence
He is Pure Love: The First Being loves His essence and is loved by His essence regardless of
whether or not He is loved by other things.60 God is also Pure Wisdom, for He knows all
things completely and perfectly not via intermediaries, but from Himself since He is the
source and cause of all things. The clearest indication of the concept of Gods personality is
Ibn Sinas notion that God is the Truly Rich (al-Ghani al-Haqq) and the True King (al-Malik
al-Haqq) in an absolute sense: the essence of all things belongs to Him for all things derived
from Him.61 Unlike Aristotle Ibn Sina does not face much difficulty in positing the unity and
personality of God, all those attributes are mentioned in the Quran. He has successfully
introduces the Islamic message although his demonstration might be controversial. His theory
of the unity of essence and existence in God and his theory of emanation, for example have
resulted in the negation of Gods attributes and creation calls for Muslim theologians to
repudiate.
Concluding Remark
Despite his remarkable system of philosophy, Aristotles concept of God is not so
exhaustive. It is still within the boundary of pagan theology,62 that usually involve natural
process of reasoning concerning God that oppose to those that requires the assistance of
revelation.63 All those doctrines and concepts that based on unaided reason are not only
contradict the Islamic doctrine, but philosophically implausible. Perhaps these are what Prof.
Wan Mohd Nor means by vain argumentation (mir), doubt (shakk) and conjecture (ann) in
attaining the certainty of spiritual, intelligible and material realities. 64 If this assumption is
59

Al-Shif, al-Ilhiyt, vol.1, 37; cf. Al-Ishrt, vol., 3, 44-45.

60

Al-Ishrt, vol. 4, 42.

61

Ibid, vol. 3, 124..

62
63

Gerson quoting St.Augustine mentioned three kind of pagan theology: civic theology, mythical theology and

natural theology, See Gerson, God and Greek Philosophy, 1.

Blackburn, Simon, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. natural theology.

64

Wan Mohd Nor Wan Daud, The Educational Philosophy and Practice of Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas,
Kuala Lumpur, ISTAC, 1998, 312.

admitted, what has been carried out by Ibn Sina, to some extent, has liberated Aristotles
concept of God from vain argumentation that resulted in doubt and conjectures. This is the
very meaning of Islamization.
Kuala Lumpur, June, 22, 2000

_----------------------------------------

15

Bibliography
Aristotle, Metaphysics, Translated by Richard Hope, New York: Ann Arbor Paperback, The
University of Michigan Press, 1960.
Aristotle, Physics VII & VIII, Commentary of Simplicius, translated by Charles Hagen,
Duckworth, London, 1994.
Blackburn, Simon, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994
Connor, D.J., A Critical History of Western Philosophy, The Free Press of Glenco, Collier
Macmillan Limited, London, 1964.
Coupleston, F.S.J., A History of Philosophy, Search Press, London, 1946.
Davidson, Herbert A, Avicennass Proof of the Existence of God as a Necessarily Existent
Being, in Islamic Philosophical Theology, ed. Parviz Morewedge, Albany, SUNY Press, 1979.
Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London New York, Routledge,
1998.
Edwards C Halper, One and Many in Aristotles Metaphysics, Ohio State University Press,
Columbus, 1989.
Gerson, L.P. God and Greek Philosophy, A Studies in the Early History of Natural Theology,
London: Routledge, 1994.
Goichon, A.M. The Philosopher of Being in Avicenna Commemoration Volume, Calcutta,
Iran Society, 1956.
Ibn Sina Al-Shif, al-ab iyyt, as quoted by Michael E Marmura, in Michael E Marmura, The
Metaphysics of Efficient Causality in Avicenna, 174.
Ibn Sina, al-Ishrt, wa al-Tanbht, ed. S.Dunya, 4 vols. Cairo: Dr al-Marif, 1971,
Ibn Sina, Al-Shif, al-Ilhiyyt, vol.1, ed. Qanawt and Sad Zyd, Cairo: al-Hayah almmah li shun al-Mabi al-Amriyyah, 1960, vol. I & II.
Ibn Taymiyyah,, al-Radd al al-Maniqiyyn, ed. R.Ajam, Beirut: Dr al-Fikr al-Lubnn,
1993.
Majid Fakhry, The Subject Matter of Metaphysics: Aristotle and Ibn Sina, in Majid Fakhry,
Philosophy, Dogma and the Impact of Greek Thought in Islam, Norfolk, great Britain, Variorum,
1994.
Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy, Now York: Columbia University Press, 1983.
Michael E Marmura, ed. Islamic Theology and Philosophy, New York, Albany, SUNY, 1984.
Morewedge, Parwiz, The Metaphysics of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), A critical translationcommentary and analysis of the fundamental argument in Avicennas Metaphysics, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
Netton, Ian Richard, Allah Transcendent, London: Routledge, 1989.
Owen Joseph, Doctrine Of Being in The Aristotelian Metaphysics, Pointifial Institute of
Medieval Studies, Toronto, Canada, 1978.
Parviz Morewedge, Islamic Philosophy and Theology, New York, Albany: SUNY Press, 1979.
Ross, Sir David, Aristotle, London, New York, Routledge, 1995.
Scaltsas, Theodore, Substance & Universal in Aristotles Metaphysics, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca and London, 1994.
Vlastos, Gregory, Studies in Greek Philosophy, vol. II, ed. Daniel W Graham, Princeton
University Press Princeton, New Jersey, 1995.
Wan Mohd Nor Wan Daud, The Educational Philosophy and Practice of Syed Muhammad
Naquib al-Attas, Kuala Lumpur, ISTAC, 1998.