Ulumuna

Journal of Islamic Studies Publish by State Islamic Institute Mataram

Vol. 20, No. 1, 2016, p. 69-90
Print ISSN: 1411-3457, Online ISSN: 2355-7648
available online athttp://ejurnal.iainmataram.ac.id/index.php/ulumuna

ABĬ AL-H{ASAN MUH{AMMAD BIN YĬSUF

AL-‘ĀMIRĪ’S VIEW ON RELIGION

H. Zuhri
Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, Yogyakarta
Email: [email protected]

Abstract: One of the thinkers on religion in Islamic philosophical

discourse is Abū al-H{asan Muh}ammad bin Yūsuf al-„Āmirī (d.
381/933). His thoughts, written in al-i‘lām bi manāqib al-Islām as
magnum opus for his intellectual carrier, have been identified as an
ideal prototype of classical and rational religious studies. Before
exploring the principles of religions, his first step was that he
introduced the importance of knowledge of milliya or religiosities‟
perspective for reading phenomena of religion. Apologetical-
reflective was the common method used by al-„Āmirī to read
Islam and other religions. This method does not intend to
disrespect or wrong other religions but it is as a tool to identify
identity as well as distinguish Islam from other religions. However,
al-„Āmirī realised that epistemological, historic, or praxis problems
in religion facts, including Islam, become homework for the next
generation.
Keywords: Islam, religion, al-„Āmirī,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20414/ujis.v20i1.803

69
Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA
 70 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

Introduction
UNTIL TODAY, the figure of Abū al-H{asan al-„Āmirī has not
much known among schools, academia, or the community in
Indonesia. Alienation can be due to some factors, one of which
is the loss of al-„Āmirī‟s works so that his thoughts are not
widely known.1 This condition makes the scarcity of enthusiasts
both in the internal among Muslim intellectuals and in
Orientalists that are discussing the ideas of al-„Āmirī. Moreover,
one of the modern Iraqi writers named Saīd al-Gānamī wrote
that al-„Āmirī was a magbūnun Islamic philosopher until the
advent of the book al-‘ilām bi manāqib al-Islām edited (tah}qīq) by
al-Gurab in 1987. However, it does not mean that there is none
that had discussed his works before.2
There are some intellectuals who have written the thoughts
of al-„Āmirī, one of whom is Mohammed Arkoun as one of the
Muslim writers and Everett K Rowson from Western academia.
In the context of contemporary Islamic studies, both reviewers
show no appreciable differences in their writings. Both try to
review the thoughts of al-„Āmirī from the perspective they
practiced. Contemporary Islamic studies, in general, tend to take
specific focus of study or even very specific.
Therefore, this paper also follows the tradition of the
contemporary Islamic studies to examine ideas or thoughts
about a theme of a Muslim thinker, in this case, Abu al-Hasan
al-„Āmirī. Thus, for the sake of reading context among the
Indonesian intellectuals, this paper sought to introduce the
figure of al-„Āmirī along with his thoughts and discourses
among the contemporary observers. In addition, this paper also
presents one part of the thoughts of al-„Āmirī‟s, as a
philosopher, about religion. John Walbridge wrote that “his
major interest was the relationship between religion and

1 W. Madelung, for example, wrote that “al-„amiri is still relatively little

known Muslim Philosopher” W. Madelung, “Review books: A Muslim
Philosopher on the Soul and it Fate,” The Journal of The Royal Asiatic Society
of Great Britain and Ireland, no. 1 (1990): 156.
2For example in 1965, Mohammad Arkoun had written al-„Āmirī‟s

thought on happiness. Mohammad Arkoun,“le conquéte du bonheur selon

Abu al-Hasan al-„Amiri,” Studia Islamica, no. 22 (1965): 55-90.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 17

philosophy. He wrote on comparative religion and the

philosophical analysis of questions of religion, such as the
afterlife and free will”. 3
Discussions on religion from both practical and theoretical
point of view are always hit by the interests of theology and
ideology respectively. This condition makes the discourse
incomplete or half-over half, no openness and sincerity that
come when religious followers present their religion in other
religions. They assume that opening up is threatening the
existence of their religion. Religious studies always present in a
space to defend themselves (defensive) or attack others
(offensive). Thus, such tradition seems to have been rooted
deeply in the community both among commoners and among
people who claim to be intellectuals. The tradition of discourse
about religion seems to have always been this way from the past
time. In fact, it is on the contrary.
This paper intends to open a path that has seemingly been
disconnected, i.e. the path of thinking traditions about
discussing religious performed by classical Muslim scholars or
thinkers. The discussion needs to be shown in the present
context to prove a hypothesis that the tradition of religious
studies has long been rooted in the Muslim intellectual circles in
the context of comparative, philosophy and historical studies.
Among them is Abū al-H{asan al-„Āmirī. He managed to capture
his thoughts about religion through his work al-I‘lām bi manāqib
al-Islām openly and objectively without losing his characteristics
as a Muslim intellectual who has the foundations, i.e. the Qur‟an
and al-Sunnah.
On comparative religion in Indonesia, especially, Karl A.
Staanbrink said that discussion on religious studies or
comparative religion in Indonesia with the results of Western
science of religion is not held on the basis of the best results but
it is very often on the basis of secondary literature and books as
well which are not in use any more in the West. According to
Steenbrink, study of comparative Religion in Indonesia is

3John Walbridge, “Review books: A Muslim Philosopher on the Soul

and it Fate: al-Amiri‟s Kitab al-Amal „ala al-„Abad,” International Journal of

Middle East Studies 22, no. 3 (August 1990): 360.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 72 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

“mostly concentrated on the study of religion outside Islam and

is considered as a help and a tool to study religion of
communities outside the Muslim community. The study usually
has no relevance for the understanding of one's own religion”.4
Therefore, the discussion in this paper is not just in the context
of content or material but also in the surrounded intellectual
atmosphere. It is to show that religious studies are not merely
monologue idea addressed in exclusive spaces but rather the
ideas that come out through a process of dialogue and discourse
in community.

The Life of al-‘Āmirī and Discourse About Him

Abū al-Hasan al-„Āmirī‟s full name is Abū al-H{asan
Muh}ammad bin Abī Dharr Yūsuf al-„Āmirī al-Naysabūrī.
Among his admers, he is often referred to Abū al-H{asan al-
„Āmirī or simply al-„Āmirī. He is Muslim intellectual who lived in
the 4th After Hijrah (AH) or 10th AD. His birth is not known
with certainty. Ah}mad „Abd al-H{āmid Garab, the writer of
Muqaddimah as well as the investigator (tah}qīq) of the work of al-
„Āmirī, i.e. al-I‘lām bi manāqib al-Islām, also did not mention the
date of his birth. However, biographical notes, although need to
be researched again, show that he was born in 912 AD in
Naisabura.
Since childhood, al-„Āmirī pursued religious studies under
the guidance of his family and local religious leaders. His
diligence in understanding the religion had continued as al-
„Āmirī studied in madrassa al-Kindi, a madrassa which was
pioneered by the philosopher al-Kindi that was then followed by
his student Ah}mad bin Sahl Abū Ma‟shar al-Balkhi.5 Al-Balkhi
was the main teacher who inspired thinking paradigm of al-
„Āmirī. The paradigm could be referred to as integrative

4Karl A. Steenbrink, “A Study of Comparative Religion By Indonesia

Muslim: A Survey,” Numen 37, no. 2 (December 1990): 163.
5According to the notes by Gerhard Endress, Abū Ma‟shar al-Balkhi is

an astrologer. One of his works is al-madkhal al-kabīr fī ilm ah}kām al-nujūm.

Gerhard Endress, “The Language of Demonstration: Translating Science
and the Formation of Terminology in Arabic Philosophy and Science,”
Early Science and Medicine 7, no. 3 (2002): 243.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 17

paradigm between Islamic tradition reasoning on the one hand

and Greek tradition reasoning on the other side. In fact, the
paradigm had been built by al-Kindi as the founding father of
Islamic philosophy, madrasa al-Kindi, and the tradition of
scientific paradigms. It was written by Garab as follows: 6
- ‫ والسيما البلخي والعامسي‬- ‫ومن أهم ما ًتميز به الكندي وجالمير مدزسته‬
،‫أنهم جمعىا إلى جانب الثقافت العسبيت إلاسالميت ثقافاث أخسي عدًدة‬
‫ وقىمىا‬،‫والسيما الثقافت اليىنانيت وثقافاث ألامم ذاث الحضازاث القدًمت‬
،‫هره الثقافاث من جهت نظس إسالميت فاستفادوا بما فيها من علىم وحكمت‬
.‫وفندوا ما بها من أخطاء وجهاالث‬
Such a paradigm was needed to quell internal unrest among
Muslims who brought new ideas about religion in community
that had existed and/or established in the case of religious
understanding. The paradigm was then conveyed to the Muslim
community and shown them that actually the perspectives of
thought from the outside, especially Greece, did not conflict
with religious ideas within Islam. 7
In addition to al-Balkhi, other figure who shaped al-„Āmirī‟s
personality and intellectual was Ibn Sīnā. Ibn Sīnā
accommodated the issues promoted by al-„Āmirī while al-„Āmirī
himself managed to shed his controversial ideas for then being
given to Ibn Sīnā to be answered and documented into a work
under the name al-ajwibāt. In a biographical note, in addition to
being as a philosopher, al-Tawhīdī also identified al-„Āmirī as a
Sufi. 8 Al-Tawhīdī further wrote that al-„Āmirī is the figure of
sufi who move from one city to another. However, he likes a
debate or scientific and intellectual debate (al-jadal). He argued
with al-Sirafi on the meaning of bismillāh and so on.9

6 Ah}m ad „Abd al-H{ā mid Garab, “Abū al-H{asan al-„Āmirī: Ma‟ālimu

H{ayātihi,” in al-I’lām bi manāqib al-Islām, ed. Abū al-H{asan al-„Āmirī (Riyadh:
D ā r al-Ashalah, 1988), 8.
7Madelung, “Review books,” 156.
8Abū H{ayyān al-Tawh}īdī, al-Imta’ wa al-Mu’ānasah (al-Q ā hirah: Lajnah al-

Ta‟līf wa al-Tarjamah wa-al-Nashr, 1939), 94.

9al-Tawh}īdī, al-Imta’ wa al-Mu’ānasah, 193-194.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 74 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

Apart from the negative or positive views toward al-„Āmirī,

al-Tawh}īdī and Ibn Miskawaih were the two figures who mostly
quoted the thoughts or responses to the views of al-Āmirī. In
two of his works, al-Imta’ and al-muqābasāt, al-Tawh}īdī described
al-„Āmirī in various faces. In al-muqābasāt, for example, al-
Tawh}īdī wrote that al-„Āmirī was a pious on the era, a figure of a
very deep knowledge in the field of Greek philosophy, and even
called that al-Āmirī had written the book sharah} (explanation) on
the works of Aristotle.10 But, al-„Āmirī‟s life and work made
the tensions in the interplay between religion and philosophy or
between revelation and human reason or between classical
Greek learning and Qur‟anic teachings in context of Buyid
Bagdhad.
However, it was well known that the figure of al-„Āmirī was
a stranger among students of contemporary Islamic philosophy.
In fact, Sa„īd al-Gānamī, the editor (muh}aqqīq) and the writer of
muqaddimah Arba’u Rasā’il al-‘Āmirī, gave a title to al-„Āmirī as an
Islamic philosopher who was thought as a stranger (magbūnun).
His strangeness could be caused by many things, one of which
was the buried works of al-„Āmirī in a collection of manuscripts
in various libraries in the world. On Islamic internal circles, a
new figure of al-„Āmirī became interesting conversations when
„Abd al-H{āmid Garab edited, investigated (tah}qīq) and gave a
Muqaddimah to a famous work of al-„Āmirī, al-‘ilām bi manāqib al-
Islām in the 1970s. In fact, in Western intellectual circles, the
works of al-„Āmirī began to be read in the 1930s. Hans P. Kraus
(1907-1988)11, for example, analysed and edited one of the texts
claimed to be the work of al-„Āmirī, i.e. Ibshar wa al-mubshir
published in the Journal of Orientalia in 1937. In addition to
Kraus, Mojtaba Minovi was also one of the important leaders
10Abū H{ayyān al-Tawh}īdī, al-muqābsāt (Bagd ād: Mat}baʻah al-Irshād,
1988), 125.
11Hans Peter Kraus was one of the schoolars as well as a practitioner in

Library Yale University that put interest in rare manuscripts. He even led Yale
Library Associate in a long term. Herman W Leibert, “Hans P. Kraus,” The
Yale University Library Gazette 63, no. ¾ (1989): 98. Even, P Kraus was
one of the collectors of Islamic paintings from 11 th century. See: Ernst J
Grube, Islamic Painting form the 11th to the 18th Century in Collection of Hans P
Kraus, (New York: 1972).

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 17

that brought back the figure and thought of al-„Āmirī through

his tah}qīq process and Muqaddimah to one of al-„Āmirī‟s works,
i.e., al-Sa‘ādah wa al-Is‘ād published in a book form printed in the
1950s in Wisbaden.
From Kraus and Minovi, papers were then published in the
Journal, some of which were those written by Mohammed
Arkoun. He wrote a paper on al-„Āmirī in 1965.12 Many articles
by Arkoun used Arabic text references that had not been widely
read in the academic world of Islam. Arkoun read al-„Āmirī in
the context of the interaction of three figures whom were
associated with al-„Āmirī, i.e. Ibn Miskawaih and Abū Hayyān al-
Tawh}īdī. Arkoun read al-Sa‘ādah wa al-Is‘ād and al-i‘lām bi manāqib
al-Islām by al-„Āmirī using techniques on the basic concepts
promoted by al-„Āmirī for then being reconstructed to be able to
emerge relatively fresh and contextual ideas in the present
context. Al-„Āmirī, as written by Joel Kraemer, quoting
Aristotle, distinguishes between natural and unnatural affection,
citing as examples of the natural variety of affection of a ruler
for his subjects, parents for their children, a man and his wife, a
man for his fellow citizens, and likewise love for all mankind
and for animals. 13
After Arkoun, a writing by Michel Allard came up, entitled
Un philosophie theologien published in Revue de l’histoire des religions
vol. 187 no. 1 in 1975. Referring to al-‘ilām bi manāqib al-Islām,
Allard concluded that al-„Āmirī had successfully reflected
religion and religious concepts rationally although sometimes
admittedly he still brought apologetic visions. Allard wrote: 14

12 The paper by Arkoun was “le conquete de Bonheur selon Abu al-
Hasan al-„Amiri,” Studia Islamica, no. 22 (1965), and “logocentrisme et
véritée religieuse dans la pensée islamique d‟aprés al-I’lam bi manaqib al-Islam
d’ al-Amiri,” Studia Islamica, no. 35 (1972). The brief explanation can be read
in H. Zuhri, “Sejarah dan Nalar Humanisme Islam: Perpektif Mohammed
Arkoun (1928-2010),” Refleksi 15, no. 1 (January 2015): 45-56.
13Joel Kraemer, “Humanism in Renaissance of Islam: A Preliminary
Studies,” Journal of American Oriental Society 104, no. 1 (January-March 1984):
162.
14Michel Allard, “Un philosophie theologien,” Revue de l’histoire des religions

187, no. 1 (1975): 67. It means that if this conclusion is the only way to give
meaning to the assertions of „Amiri , at the same time it raises a problem

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 76 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

Mais si cette conclusion est la seule qui permette de donner un sens aux
affirmations de 'Âmirï, elle soulève en même temps un problème qui
concerne non plus le contenu de l'ouvrage mais son caractère
visiblement apologétique. Nous nous trouvons en effet devant une
contradiction apparente. D'une part 'Âmirï affirme clairement que le
domaine de la raison est celui qui est délimité par la religion
musulmane, et d'autre āpart il prend en considération des arguments
qui viennent des non-musulmans, c'est-à-dire d'un domaine qui, pour
lui, est extérieur et à l'Islam et à la raison.
Thus, it can be said that magnum opus by al-„Āmirī was the
book of al-I‘lām. Commonly, this book expresses to establish the
superiority of Islam over other religion. 15 This book inspired
many modern Muslim intellectuals to study further about the
basic concepts of religion and religiosity. Arkoun discussed it in
terms of religious logos that al-„Āmirī tried to carry out, while
Allard preferred construction of social argument in which al-
„Āmirī built his religiosity reasoning. Regardless to all, through
some of his works and especially of the book of al-I‘lām, al-
„Āmirī was then not positioned everywhere. Was Al-„Āmirī the
al-Ash‟ari or Mu‟tazili theologian? The analysts tended to
reposition al-„Āmirī independently; he sometimes followed the
line of Ash‟ari thoughts but in another dimension al-„Āmirī
preferred Mu‟tazilah. What is clear that, through al-I’lām, Al-
„Āmirī had successfully built new paradigm about religion and
philosophy. By citing the views „Abd al-H{amīd, Gerhard
Endress wrote that: 16
Abū al-Hasan al-„Āmirī (d. 992), spreading the spirit of Kindi's school
in the East after taking the measure of al-Sirafi (and giving him a hard
time), wrote the most detailed attempt to determine the relation of the
religious and the philosophic disciplines in a harmonious symmetry, a

that concerns not the content of the book but it is obviously apologetic . We
are indeed at an apparent contradiction. On the one hand ' Amiri clearly
states that the domain of reason is that which is defined by Islam , and
secondly it considers the arguments that come from non-Muslims , that is to
say an area that , for him, is outside and Islam and reason.
15As written by Louise Marlow, Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islam
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 88.
16Gerhard Endress, “The Language of Demonstration: Translating

Science and the Formation of Terminology in Arabic Philosophy and

Science,” Early Science and Medicine 7, no. 3 (2002): 248.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 11

"Proclamation of the Virtues of Islam" (al-‘lām bi-manāqib al-Islām). The

very title is an apologetic programme: the rational sciences (al-'ulūm al-
hikmiyya) are put into the service of Islam, the absolute religion, and of
the religious sciences (al-'ulūm al-milliyya). Both spheres "are based on
tenets which agree with pure reason (al-'aql al-shārih) and are supported
by valid demonstration (al-burhān al-shārih).
Another work of al-„Āmirī which widely discussed was al-
amad ‘alā al-abad ( ‫) األم د علدد األب د‬. This book was specifically
addressed in a doctoral research conducted by Evereet K
Rowson with a title A Muslim Philosopher on the Soul and its Fate: al-
‘Āmirī’s Kitab al-amad ‘alā al-abad (1988). The work written in
Bukhara was relatively intact from the beginning so that the
editing process was much easier, as written by Madelung:17
al-amad ‘alā al-abad deals with the afterlife of man according to the
doctrine of the philosophers. al-„Āmirī seeks to show that the majority
of the Greek philosophers believed in the immortality of the soul and
its reward and punishment in the hereafter. While admitting that they
denied the bodily resurrection taught by Islam, he argues in the final
section of his book that this shortcoming of the philosophers did not
result from any defect of their basic principles of thought and that
these principles can in fact be shown to support the Islamic belief. In
his meticulous analysis and commentary on the text, Rowson identifies
Plato's Phaedo as al-„Āmirī‟s ultimate main source and suggests that he
drew on a text based on the lost Phaedo commentary of John
Philoponus and perhaps on that of Proclus. Rowson's through
examination of the history of the ideas expressed by al-„Āmirī in the
Greek and Arabic sources is impressive.
In addition to serious ideas promoted by al-„Āmirī, this book
could also be regarded as semi autobiography because it
explained some of his teachers, especially al-Balkhi, and exposed
theological ideas which were not rigid. At one dimension he
tended to follow the views constructed by Ash‟ari while in other
cases he tended to agree with Mu‟tazilah. This means that al-
amad was not merely a discourse on immortality of the soul but
also a discourse of al-„Āmirī himself.
Another work was al-Sa‘ādah wa al-Is‘ād (‫) السدادة واإلسدادة‬, the
book which was originally still a manuscript then investigated
(tah}qīq) by M. Minovi and published in Wisbaden in 1957. This

Madelung, “Review books,” 157.

17

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 78 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

book was reviewed by Mohammad Arkoun and then published

in the journal of Studia Islamica. What was discussed by Arkoun
against the book could be a book edited by Minovi. Arkoun
concluded from the perspective of semiotics that he used to
read the book, the book of al-Sa‘ādah wa al-Is‘ād.
The last work newly appeared in public was arba’u rasā’il
falsafiyyah li al-‘Āmirī. Until the completion of this writing, the
book is not yet available. What was clear from some of the
information written on the several online references mentioned
that the one who investigated (tah}qīq) the book was Sa„id al-
Gānamī. 18
In addition to those five works, the other works of al-„Āmirī
were still unpublished manuscripts. One of the al-„Āmirī‟s
unpublished works was fusūl fī ma’ālim al-ilāhiyyah assumed to be
a translation or summary of Aristotelian theology notions that
the other translations into Arabic was known as Mahd al-Khayr
which had been translated into Latin Liber de causis. Two texts
(al-fusūl and mahd al-khayr) which were claimed as the work of al-
Kindi and al-„Āmirī until today have not been published. 19
About al-Fusūl, Rowson described it as follows: 20
The Fusūl is a brief work of eleven folios, divided into twenty chapters
(fas}l). It sets forth a standard Neo-platonic hierarchy, examines various
features of it, and concludes with a proof for the immortality of the
soul. Most of this material is directly dependent on the Mahd al-khayr,
although in the form of extreme paraphrases. There are few direct
quotations, and the intention of the original is frequently distorted,
sometimes severely, but the correspondences between the two texts are
nevertheless quite clear.
Meanwhile, Abdollatif Ahmadi put al-„Āmirī‟s reasoning
about religion in space of the Comparative Religion. This view
seems to be a general view among scholars who look at al-„Āmirī

18 Abū al-Hasan al-„Āmirī, arba’u rasā’il falsafiyyah (Najaf: Jami„ah al-

Kuffah, 2015). Also see in Shafa Diyab, “al-faylasuf al-mugibbūn fī
rasā‟ilihī al-falsafiyyah,” al-Quds al-‘Arabī, accessed May 25, 2015.
http://www.alquds.co.uk/?page_id=521704
19Evereet K Rowson, “An Unpublished Work by al-„Āmirī and the

Date of Arabic De Causis,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104, no. 1
(January-March 1984): 193-199.
20Rowson, “An Unpublished Work,” 195.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 17

and the researcher of comparative religion in general. In fact,

the concept of comparative religion in the tenth century was not
yet familiar among Muslim intellectuals. They studied a
particular religion is not to be compared but to pair it with
other. Therefore , it seems more accurate to say as understood by
Nuha al-Sha‟r that al-„Āmirī used philosophy and logic to explain
religious matters and theological topics in order to advance a
religious vision more in sync with society. He also try to harmonise
religion and philosophy 21.

Discourse of Religion
Religious discourse in Islam at the 10th century can be
divided into three parts. It does correlate with the paradigm that
Islam is revealed religion based on the Qur‟an and Prophetic
tradition. The dynamics of those parts are the dialectic between
revelation on the one hand and social reality in the other side.
However, the explanation is important in this paper to
determine the position of al-„Āmirī in the discourse about
religion in internal Islam circles. Firstly, Islam as a religion, the
first case brought by the Prophet and then discussed and
developed further by the companions and successors are the
principal teachings of Islam related to beliefs, laws and worship.
These principles are managed well by the first and second
generations of Islam that gave rise to figures such as al-Shāfi„ī,
Ibn H{anbal, Abū al-H{asan al-Ash„arī, and others.
Secondly, in Islamic intellectual discourse, religion is always
discussed with power. This then gave birth to the concept of al-
dīn wa al-dawla. At the time, the common question arose
concerning the relationship between religion and state or the
power that is experiencing and outstanding growth in the world.
al-Mawardī (d. 1058) was one of the Sunni leaders who
succeeded in formulating the relation between religion and state
in a way that is very moderate. His views inspire the next
generation to put religion in the context of the state and vice

21Nuha al-Sha‟r, “An Analytical Reading in al-Tawh}idi‟s Epistle on the

Classification of Knowledge (Risalah fi al-Ulum),” in Reflection on Knowledge

and Language in Middle Eastern Societies, ed. Bruno de Nicola (Cambridge:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), 161.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 80 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

versa. In addition to al-Mawardī, there are many other scientists

who speak the same topic with different perspectives and
different conclusions from both Sunni and Shia.
Thirdly, it is those who understand religion in the context of
a more critical and independent. As a genuine Islamic
philosopher, al-Kindī (d. 873) said that the acquisition of
wisdom would combine with its actualization. Thus, philosophy
and religion are supported to have the same goal to achieve. Ibn
Miskawayh (d. 1030) is one of the most important thinkers who
emphasized the reconciliation between religion and philosophy,
and the late Islamic Philosopher's Ibn Rushd voiced the same
thing with ibn Miskawayh. One of them is Abū Rayh}an al-
Bīrūnī (d. 1047). As quoted by Hilman Latief, Arthur Jeffery
stated that al-Bīrūnī‟s contribution to the study of religion by
establishing such scrupulous scientific principles as
completeness, accuracy, and unbiased treatment is rare in his era
and unique in the history of his own faith. 22 He concerns on
comparability of the religious beliefs and practices of the Greeks
and the Indians, the distinction between popular beliefs and the
beliefs of the choosen, and also by al-Bīrūnī, polytheism to be
explained historically and rationally. 23 As al-Bīrūnī, Ibn Hazm‟s
study on Christianity is far from racial, cultural or religious
prejudices. His methodology seems to be different from the case
of a large number of modern Western scholars. His study is
objectives, academic in approaches, critical in argumentation and
debatable. 24
From three patterns above, it is clear that both religions, in
particular in the context of Islam and in general in the context of
divine religions, have a very interesting debate among followers
of the religion itself internally. The same was done by al-„Āmirī.

22 Hilman Latief, “Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim

Literature,” The American Journal of Islamic Social Science 23, no. 4 (2006): 29.
23John Walbridge, “Explaining Away The Greeks Gods in Islam,”

Journals of the History of Ideas 59, no. 3 (1998): 393-395.

24Mahmud Ahmad et al., “Ibn Hazm on Christianity: An Analysis for

Religious Approaches,” World Journal of Islamic History and Civilization 1, no.

4, (2011): 246.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 17

However, what has been done by al-„Āmirī is different from

what has been done by these Muslim intellectuals.

Religion and Religious Study in the Framework of al-

‘Āmirī
There were some things that needed to be underlined. The
first thing was the impression of Orientalists to assess
construction of apologetic argument of al-„Āmirī, as written by
Endress and Allard, while among Muslim intellectuals such as
Arkoun, he read al-„Āmirī more liberal, thus tending to go out of
the traditional meanings required by Muslims at that time and
even now.
The issue of the understanding of an important belief
studied was not merely as a religion but precisely because of its
position in the middle of a plural society in terms of diversity.
This condition was not sufficient to only establish a solid
theological-apologetic framework but also required a paradigm
of thinking about religion as a sociological-anthropological
function to give a complete understanding of the reality of other
religions. It was important to be done because, according to
Paul L. Heck, al-„Āmirī felt there was a drought or a crisis of
understanding of religion in society at that time so that there was
a need for solutions that he offered. 25 The offer, according to
al-Tawh}īdī, was submitted to the Caliph al-Ma‟mun at that time.
Such assertion needed to be underlined that the key
messages of al-„Āmirī through his works, especially the book of
al-I’lām, were not buried by the new things that were less
relevant to the sparkling methodology he carried. For that, the
first thing that needed to be done was to look at the structure of
al-„Āmirī‟s ideas through al-I’lām as written in the book.
The structure of al-„Āmirī‟s ideas began with the
classification, urgency and characteristics of the reason (al-‘aql)
in human existence as beings with reason (al-h}ayawān al-nāt}iq).
The concept of al-„Āmirī‟s reasoning was then positioned as a
foundation for the design of building an understanding of the
religiosity that he offered. Thus, the pattern actually had become
25 Paul L. Heck, “The Crisis of Knowledge in Islam: Case al-„Amiri,”
Philosophy East and West 57, no. 1 (January 2006): 107.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 82 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

a tradition in the structure of ideas promoted by a writer or a

scientist in that era. Al-„Āmirī argued that, prior to discussing a
specific theme, we should be able to build an understanding of
the concepts that would be built in order to avoid chaos
between one reader and other readers. Al-„Āmirī‟s main message
was that we need to keep the mind in order what we wanted to
understand departed from one perspective and the same
framework for understanding. The framework built by al-„Āmirī
was not solely building an understanding of the religious
theoretical but also concerned with praxis things. The discourse
about religion was not just a mere theoretical region, but it had
to also prioritize praxis dimensions.
Vision built by al-„Āmirī became a paradigmatic vision of the
concept of science in general and religious science in particular,
scientific vision that was not only wrestling on theoretical-
metaphysical dimensions but also giving ample scope to the
praxis dimensions. Because by siding on issues in the field,
theoretical dimension would by itself be stronger. 26 Departing
from the above understanding, al-„Āmirī insisted that we must
distinguish between the philosophical sciences (al-ulūm al-
h}ikmiyyah) and religious-based sciences (al-ulūm al-milliyyah). For
al-„Āmirī, religion was not merely present in the frame of
confidence but what should also be underlined from the outset
is that a scientific concept is born together with the birth of the
religion. However, it did not mean that al-„Āmirī dichotomized
philosophy from religion; al-„Āmirī kept using philosophical
assumptions in understanding religion. It was as carried out by
al-„Āmirī in understanding the concept of faith (al-īmān).
According to al-„Āmirī, faith was a strong belief and had truth
that had been tested. For al-„Āmirī, there was no faith without
truth. Therefore, strong faith has to be accompanied by the
construction of truth or in, the language of al-„Āmirī, it was
termed al-quwwah al-‘āqilah (rational potentiality) and not just al-
quwwah al-mutakhayyilah (hypothesis-imagine potentiality).

26 al-„Āmirī wrote ‫ فإن‬.‫أن كل من أثر لنفسه هذه العقيدة فقد إرتكب حطأ فاخشا‬
‫ وال يرغب فى العلوم الفاضلة اال ألجل األعمال‬،‫ والعمل تمام للعلم‬،‫العلم مبدأ للعمل‬
.‫ الصالحة‬Abū al-Hasan al-„Āmirī, al-‘ilām bi manāqib,75.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 17

Departing from the background in mind, al-„Āmirī

formulated the basic conception of religion. For al-„Āmirī, in
addition to being a doctrine, religion was an idea as well. If the
doctrine rests on the carrier of its treatise, the idea relies on the
potential of truth to which it aspires. Therefore, al-„Āmirī in
general explained that religion has always four elements: (1) faith
(al-‘itiqādāt), (2) ritual (al-‘ibādāt), (3) public affairs (al-mu’āmalāt),
and (4) sanctions (al-mazājir). Those elements were present in
some religious concepts as mentioned in the Qur‟an, i.e.,
QS.22:17, 2:63, and QS. 5:69. Based on the above verses of the
Qur‟an above, according to al-„Āmirī, religion was divided into
six types: (1) Islam, (2) the Jews, (3) Shabi‟in, (4) Christian, (5)
Zoroastriansm, and (6) Polytheism.
Al-„Āmirī found that the sixth religions had the concept and
dimensions of the same conviction that was faith in Allah,
angels, books, messengers, and the Last Day, as referred to in
QS. 4:136. While in the practice of worship, six religions also
had the concept and practice of the same ritual worship, i.e.,
self-worship such as prayer, physical worship such as fasting,
possession worship such as alms, ownership worship such as
jihad, and collaborative worship like Hajj. Al-„Āmirī used QS.
22:34 as the reference. While in the context of family or public
affairs, all religions also held five main points or principles,
namely the principle of conventionalism such as buying, selling
and renting, marriage principles, principles of evidence and
conjecture, principles of trust, and principles of property or
inheritance. The last was the principle of criminal law in religion
that included taking lives, theft, acts that harm others, and out of
his religious beliefs. Of the four elements in religion above and
in every element there were six basic principles, every religion
had then 20 basic principles. 27
Subject matter above became a meeting point as well as a
starting point in understanding religions in the context of a
belief or a fact or reality on the ground. Nevertheless, al-„Āmirī
also then reminded that, in every religion, principle of the belief
was above the other principles. Only after that, the principle of

al-„Āmirī , al-‘ilām bi manāqib, 123.

27

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 84 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

worship was then done, followed by the principle of mu’āmalah,

and the last was the principle of sanctions or penalties. The
sequence became a pressing point in every issue in a religion.
Theological affairs were sometimes blasted with public affairs.
In fact, both had a viewing angle and a different position in
religion. Al-„Āmirī put the principles of faith in religion as an
episteme that characterized the patterns of action reflected in
spiritual behaviour in both individual and social contexts. 28
Apart from the elements and principles of the religion, as
described above, al-„Āmirī claimed about the advantages of
Islam in some aspects over other religions. It should be
recognized that the claim of al-„Āmirī‟s apologetics came when
he explained the concept of fad}īlah al-Islām understood as the
excess or the primacy of Islam compared with other religions.
Nevertheless, apologetic argument is not to blame others but
seems to be an attempt to compare by highlighting the primacy
dimensions of a religion or a particular thing compared to
religion or other things. This was done to provide and
strengthen readers or followers. Such apologetic vision is
actually happening in all of the arguments built by a religion.
The thing can give enlightenment to the readers, and this was
carried out by al-„Āmirī, i.e., when the arguments built were
formulated in a philosophical perspective and not in a
dogmatism-theological perspective.
Among the aspects of religion that tried to be compared or
more precisely described by al-„Āmirī were the theological
aspects of Islam. According to al-„Āmirī, dimensional ‘itiqādi in
Islam was built with the construction of solid logic and
argumentation because coupled with the openness of thought
even with the tradition of philosophical reasoning. This is in
contrast to the beliefs of others, things that also occur in the
context of understanding the concept of the treatise or
nubuwwah. Compared with other religions, Islam tends to

28 Ibid., 123. al-„Āmirī wrote:

‫وإذ عرف هذا فمن الواجب أن نعلم أن أفضل أصناف األركان الدينية هي الخمسة‬
‫ واألصناف األخر هي معدودة من حيز‬،‫ فإنها معدودة من حيز العلم‬،‫الواقعة تحت اإلعتقادات‬
‫ أو لنسبة البدء‬، ‫ وليس يشك أن نسبة العلم إلى العمل مضاهية لنسبة العلة إلى المعلول‬،‫العمل‬
.‫إلى التمام‬

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 17

moderate in understanding the concept of prophethood. The

same is also being put in to place and understand the concept of
angels. Islam tries placing it in proportion as the venerable
servant of Allah. As for Kalam Allah as khitāb or discourse, the
comparative context lies in dimensions.
Ritual Aspects in Islam became a portrait for al-„Āmirī how
a religion moved from the direction or dimension very
burdensome for the believer (al-shiddah), leading to an attitude
that made the existence of religion seem to be equal to its
absence. It was caused by the concepts of Ubudiyyah or riatual in
religion which was very light (al-layyin). The pattern sometimes
ran in contrast. Al-„Āmirī declared that the principle of worship
or spirituality in Islam was always flexible and moderate in
points (al-mutawassit}ah). Dialectic process in the practice of
worship in the dimensions of space, time and identity of man
always walked harmoniously. Thus, such process became
dialectic-spiritualistic of relationship between human and God as
mentioned in QS. 35:62. Such ideals, according to al-„Āmirī,
were practically not found in any other religion for other
religions were more damning in their spiritual dimension and
even had more emphasis on the dimensions of the physical-
materialistic. 29
Another thing that was not less interesting, according to al-
„Āmirī, was a political construction that was built by Islam far
relatively more ideal than a political system existing before.
Although the idea of al-„Āmirī was formulated in the context of
its ideals and not in the reading of the reality, the view of al-
„Āmirī was worth appreciating because an understanding of the
positive politics and even prophetic always present as voices of
the sky that sensitized the public readers. Specifically, al-„Āmirī
underlined the difference between the system of al-imāmah and
al-khilāfah. According to him, al-imāmah was always oriented to
al-fadīlah (virtue) while al-khalīfah had to always be oriented to
the victory (al-tagallub). Nevertheless, al-„Āmirī still underlined
that the best leadership system was prophetic leadership system
that always upheld the values of truth, had a vision of virtue, and

al-„Āmirī , al-I‘lām bi Manāqib,137-149.

29

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

86 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

always adhered to the principles of balance between hereafter

and temporal dimensions. 30
For al-„Āmirī, religious or political attention to the people
was not merely as objects to be managed well; al-„Āmirī in fact
precisely promoted the concept of people or society as a subject
that had a strong existence in the eyes of the religion and the
power to sustain it. Therefore, al-„Āmirī could be regarded as a
figure who promoted Islamic populism concept, a concept in
which people become the main force of dignity (al-sharīf), strong
(al-Qawī) and nurturing (al-walī), not disgraced people (al-wad}ī‘),
weak (al-d}a‘īf), and hostile (al-‘aduww). Those potentials were thus
very possible to be realized in a society because each person, al-
„Āmirī said, had the authority to act freely in them. 31
In the next part, al-„Āmirī identified some of the problems
and at the same time prospected in looking at the ideals and the
reality of religion. Firstly, al-„Āmirī discussed the relation
between religion and power. Clearly with poetic sentences, al-
„Āmirī wrote:
With religion, kings will be solid
With kings, religion will be strong
Problems come and go in turn, the source must stab faith
When the Sultan is weak, evils become strong
Historically, the dimensions of power is always present in
religion, even religion always stays in power. However, al-„Āmirī
read different things when Islam was being spread by
Muhammad. The prophetic concept by Muhammad actually left
something typical in the relation of power and religion.
Secondly, al-„Āmirī also reminded of a principle in the context
of religion and religiosity that the concept of truth would not be
an evil deed because of society disagreement on the concept of
that truth. Instead, the evil deeds would not be the truth because
a society agreement on those evil deeds. Al-„Āmirī wanted to
show that the concept of truth was not merely sociological-
anthropological but also metaphysical-theological. However, al-
„Āmirī realized that differences on truth would continue to
occur. Therefore, what to be developed is awareness of the

Ibid., 151-160.
30

Ibid., 162-168.
31

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 11

effect of the differences that will bear hostility and the hostility
can be a ladder for the birth of fanaticism, whether based on
class or social. In fact, fanaticism is a social disease that will bury
the common sense of society. 32
Thirdly, the analysis of al-„Āmirī to the discrepancy problems
or rather potential religious conflicts in society was caused more
by an external factor, i.e., religion that included religious and
social conditions of the followers. The problems of building an
understanding of religion that grows in every religion are not
matched with a full understanding of the religion. Therefore, the
important thing in establishing a religion is to build human, ulū
al-albāb beings that have quality and intelligence in creativity to
think, speak, and act. 33
Fourthly, wisdom in understanding the journey and the
teachings of religions becomes absolutely necessary because
wisdom will continue to rise and fall in the trajectory of their
time. Including in it was the designations written and implied in
the holy books before Islam. Al-„Āmirī confirmed it to prove
historical arguments about the truth of Muhammad as an
apostle and Islam as the last religion. 34

Conclusion
What was written by al-„Āmirī is a form of philosophical
reflections on the existence of Islam in the religious reality in
general. The ideas of al-„Āmirī were promoted in very beautifully
literary languages combined with the construction of the ideas
and language of the Qur‟an. Therefore, what was done by al-
„Āmirī can be positioned as ideal prototype of classical and
rational religious studies. The argument methods built by al-
„Āmirī were apologetic-reflective methods, but he did not intend
to disrespect any other religions but wanting to see Islam by all
dimensions in it in terms of its reality existence among other
religions. Therefore, before an assessment of the religions, al-
„Āmirī confirmed the importance of knowledge, especially
knowledge in the field or in a context of religion, to read the

32Ibid., 192.
33Ibid., 197.
34Ibid., 201.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

88 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

reality of religion (al-ulūm al-milliyah). In the end, al-„Āmirī also

realized that the Islamic faith professed by him and the public
does not necessarily negate the common sense that it becomes
self-consciousness in al-„Āmirī that in reality of a religion, Islam
is no exception, there are many problems undefined (al-shubh\at)
that will never be lost either in the realm of episteme, historical,
or praxis of Islam or religion in general. This issue is a challenge
all of us to contribute because religion will never end to actualize
identity in a society that is constantly changing.
In the other side, al-„Āmirī‟s thought on religion can be used
as primary resources to understand a concept of comparative
religion or religious studies. Islam has many intellectuals and
references about religious discourses both classic and modern
era. Therefore, comparative religion in Islamic perspective
should reference to classical discourse on religion before use
modern reference which written by Western scholars who look
at religion from outsider perspectives only and do not use
insider perspectives. What is thought and written by al-„Āmirī
about religion has specific characteristics when juxtaposed with
other thinkers such as al-Kindī, Ibn Miskawayh, al-Mawardī, and
others. al-„Āmirī combine philosophy and social perspectives on
religion. it reflects the faith by making the distance between
what he believes in one hand and what he discourses on the
other side. This distance gave rise to thoughts that the objective
facts of religion. Therefore, he does not become a spokesman
for the religion. At the same time, his own experience in the
community showed that religion is still has problems or what he
said as al-mustabih\āt or undefined concept in religion.

References

Allard, Michel. “Un philosophie théologien: Muhammad b.

Yūsuf al-„Āmirī.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 187, no. 1
(1975): 57-69.
al-„Āmirī, Abū al-Hasan. al-‘Ilām bi Manāqib al-Islām. Riyadh:
Dar al-Ashalah, 1988.
-----------------. Arba’u Rasāil Falsafiyyah li al-Āmirī. Najaf:
Jami‟ah al-Kuffah, 2015.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

 H. Zuhri, Abū al-Hasan Muhammad bin Yusuf al-‘Āmirī’s View on Religion 17

al-Tauhidi, Abu Hayyan. al-Imta’ wa al-Mu’ānasah juz III. al-

Qahirah: Lajnat al-Ta'lif wa-al-Tarjamah wa-al-Nashr, 1939.
----------------. Al-muqābsāt. Bairut: Dar al-Fikr, 1988.
Arkoun, Mohammed. “le conquete du bonheur selon Abu al-
Hasan al-„Amiri.” Studia Islamica, no. 22 (1965): 55-90.
----------------. “logocentrisme et véritée religieuse dans la pensée
islamique d‟aprés al-‘Ilam bi manaqib al-Islam d’ al-‘Āmirī.”
Studia Islamica, no. 35 (1972): 5-51.
Diyab, Shafa. “al-failasuf al-mugibbūn fi rasā‟ilihī al-falsafiyyah.” al-Quds al-
‘Arabī, accessed May 25, 2015.
http://www.alquds.co.uk/?page_id=521704
Endress, Gerhard. “The Language of Demonstration:
Translating Science and the Formation of Terminology in
Arabic Philosophy and Science.” Early Science and Medicine 7,
no. 3 (2002): 231-254.
Garab, Ahmad Abd al-Hamid. “Abū al-Hasan al-„Āmirī:
Ma‟ālimu Hayātihi.” In al-‘Ilām bi manāqib al-Islām, Abū al-
Hasan al-„Āmirī, -. Riyadh: Dar al-Ashalah, 1988.
Heck, Paul L. “The Crisis of Knowledge in Islam: Case al-
„Amiri.” Philosophy East and West 57, no. 1 (Janauary 2006):
106-135.
Kraemer, Joel. “Humanism in Renaissance of Islam: A
Preliminary Studies.” Journal of American Oriental Society 104,
no. 1 (January-March 1984): 132-164.
Latief, Hilman. “Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim
Literature.” The American Journal of Islamic Social Science
23, no. 4 (2006): 28-62.
Madelung, W. “A Muslim Philosopher on the Soul and it Fate.”
The Journal of The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland, no. 1, (1990): 156-158.
Marlow, Louise. Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islam. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Rowson, Evereet K. “An Unpublished Work by al-„Āmirī
and the Date of Arabic De Causis.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 104, no. 1 (January-March 1984): 193-199.
Steenbrink, Karel A, “The Study of Comparative Religion by
Indonesian Muslims: A Survey.” Numen 37, no. 2 (December
1990): 141-167.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA

90 Ulumuna, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June) 2016

Walbridge, John. “A Muslim Philosopher on the Soul and it

Fate: al-„Āmirī‟s Kitab al-Amal „ala al-„Abad.” International
Journal of Middle East Studies 22, no. 3 (August 1990): 360-
361.
Zuhri, H. “Sejarah dan Nalar Humanisme Islam: Perspektif
Mohammed Arkoun (1928-2010).” Refleksi 15, no. 1 (Januari
2015): 45-56.

Copyright © 2016_Ulumuna_this publication is licensed under a CC BY-SA