Everything happens out of necessity… the necessity of the one. Everything happens as it should happen No real is involved God (Allah) The One - Creator - Equally creator to everything in the universe - Creates universe out of his will - Creating out of nothing (exyuhilly?) The only Internal being is God Clane and mind spirit Body and soul Early Muslim philosophers : 1) Al-kiandi Kufa House of Wisdom 2) Al- Razi - Discovered alcohol - Black sheep - Religion Vs. Philosophy - Didn't like religion at all 3) Al- Farabi - Very important philosopher - From his view, God is the first cause and first mover . in order to explain the process of creation, he adopted the view of al-kiandi and al-razi both. - Presented this kind of combination of Greek philosophy and Muslim - He believed religion is important and revelation - Political philosophy almost died after - He's the greatest philosopher Theology Vs Philosophy (Prophets) Spontaneous Open to error (Reason) Struggle not open to error V No matter what path you take.. You lead to the TRUTH (God) - Most perfect being The first mover + the first cause (ex The world is not eternal God = the most perfect being 1) God doesn’t exist. (Ass.) 2) X is exactly like God except x exists. (ass.) 3) What exists is greater(more perfect) than what does not exist. 4) X is more perfect than God 5) God is more perfect than X 6) X is not more perfect than God 7) X is more perfect than God, and X is not more perfect than God 8) God exists. (the process of emanation) The soul is a material… rejoins in the human body to create man When the body dies the soul goes back to its source Al- Razi #2 of the Muslim philosophers 5 eternal beings (whole universe is made of these 5 elements) 1. God 2. Soul________ 3. Time 4. Space 5. Matter Eros (greek of God) a kind of passion, desire that we have for life. Soul ---> matter The order of the universe reflects life.. The reflections of soul and erotic passion we can find in human beings. With the passion we create life Soul + matter Soul needs to know that matter is not its home. Eventually has to detach itself from matter Better way to salvation is to detach of physical pleasure Moderation Death We should not fear death You can’t experience any pain Muslim Philosphers Love makes you crazy.. It’s like a disease Not a fan of story telling either #3 Al- Farabi Mind ← → (conceptionaliation) (Concepts) (Tasaawur) (language) Logic Reality relations Science Thursday class 1/31/19 Why does Al-kindi believe in the prophet Advantage: no room for errors.. More reliable. (verification) (Tasdig) At the end of the day they find the same truth as Why do we need prophets? Ibn Sina Knowledge ← → Mind Knowledge in mind (conceptionaliation) meaning (Tasaawur) (concept) Steve being a man Predicables(5) + Essence Logic Reality Propersition (verification) relations (Tasdig) Steve is a man Essence Science Essence ---- In mind(Universal) conceptionalization - In reality(particular) Essence in itself... Is it particular or universal? - It is potentially particular and potentially universal It is neither particular nor universal From ibn sina… it is a bridge between min and reality Essence in itself Mind Reality Essence in mind Essence in reality (universal) (Particular) Conceptionaliation (Tasawwur) Verification (Tasdig) Ibn sina talks about family There are species they have some characteristics in common which we call Genus.. But they have characteristics different from one another which is DIFFERENCES (rationalities) Species (Na’w) Noah Genus (Jenss) ‫جنس‬ Differences (Fassl) ‫فسل‬ Common core - Essential (genus) - Non-essential (property) (khassah) Accident (araz) Predicables: 1. Genus (Jenss) 2. Difference (Fassl) 3. Species (Na’w) 4. Property (Khasa) 5. Accident (Araz) All this is an Essence (Zat) ZOT (deep O) Definitions Sabstance Body Living bodies non-living Animal plants Humans beasts (Rationality) Spirit Difference between khasa and araz is… (accident) at one point but not at other times .. Laughing (property) characteristics.. Hair, skin color, like we all humans have it.. It’s a property every member of the group have it all the time but it is not essential to the definition. Definition ta’arif Genss + Fassl Good definition: it captures the essence It includes all the members Includes all the members and excludes all the nonmembers What is the definition of human beings … rational animals is the definition. Genuss + Difference → Definition(essence) (captures essence) Essence + Predictables → Propersition Propositions → Syllogism 1. All cats are mammals 2. All mammals are animals 3. All cats are animals Tuesday Class 2/5/19 Mind ← → (conceptionaliation) (Tasaawur) Reality (verification) (Tasdig) Rational animal Fassl Jenns ________________ Human living Essence in Reality: Science Theoretical Subject: Things over which We have no control Practical Things over which we have control Metaphysical Theology Motion Matter Mathematical Natural Science Politics (city Management) Economics Ethics (Home (Personal Management) Management) Cosmology Conceptualization (In mind) + Subsistance (In reality) + + + National Sciences Motion Matter Conceptualization (In mind) - Subsistance (In reality) + - + mathematical Sciences Motion Matter Conceptualization (In mind) - Subsistance (In reality) - - Metaphysical Sciences Steve.. Cannot exist in reality without motion and matter A number cannot exist in motion and matter God cant exist in any Casual relation… to see if it is true or not Ex: Fire burns cotton R∣ ↔️R₂ (Reality ) C∣ → C₂ Cause and effect The cause and the outcome Metaphysical Theology Cosmology Ibn Sina’s Cosmology Are the cosmos eternal? (How did the Cosmos come into existence?) Plato: Step 1: The chaotic world, I.e. The world with no order Or strict Step 2: The Dem cut of his goodness wants to give from to the matter Step 3: he does give it to the chaotic world and creates the cosmo as we know it He is going to give form to the matter C1: God is the creator of the universe. He is the efficient cause of the universe C2: the cosmos is eternal Demiurge - the giver of the forms (wahib al sufar) Thursday 2/14/19 Time is a measure of movement Matter and full? You cannot have time unless you have the cosmos As soon as you have cosmos you have time How does it prove time is eternal If God is outside of time and god is the creator of time then it makes the cosmos eternal 1) If God is the Efficient Cause of the Cosmos, then the cosmos is not eternal If the cosmos is eternal, then God is not the Efficient Cause of the Cosmos 2) The cosmos is eternal. 3) God is not the Efficient Cause of the Cosmos For Aristotle If God is not EC of the Cosmos then what is it? God is the Final cause of the Cosmos. He is not the Efficient Cause. Unmoved Mover God is the source of motion in this universe Neo. Platonist Arg. (The argument from the Native of God) *God is beyond any change Gods being the 1st cause God’s Goodness 1) If God changed from not creating the world to creating it, then it would make God subject to change 2) * 3) If God creates the world, then the world must exist as long as God exists 4) God exists eternally 5) (therefore) The world exists eternally Aristotle was ignored and believed more for the natural Why should we believe God is beyond any change? - Because they believe he is Perfect - The assumption is you make changes to improve yourself but if you are perfect there is no room to change or make mistakes. - He’s beyond time God is the first cause. There is nothing prior to god. God’s goodness requires him to create the universe from the very beginning God creates the Cosmos eternally 1) The cosmos is eternal ✓ (Greek Phil.) 2) God is the Efficient Cause of the Cosmos (The Qur’an) ● ● ● Does God exist? ** Is God the Efficient Cause? Are the cosmos eternal? Conceptualization (Tassaawur) Existence (wujüd) 1) It is the most obvious thing we can perceive 2) It cannot be proven All Humans are immortal Steve is a human -------------------------------[ Steve is immortal ] ? [there is exist] Existence (Wujud) is the most fundamental concept Necessary X exists and it cannot not exist (X exists through itself) Possibility X exists, but it can exist Necessary Through itself (Its exist-- depends Upon itself) Necessary through another (Its exist-- depends upon it cannot not y given (to the left) it cannot not exist period) Predicables: 6. Genus (Jenss) 7. Difference (Fassl) 8. Species (Na’w) 9. Property (Khasa) 10. Accident (Araz) Rational Animal Difference Genus Human Propery (khasa) Species Accident (araz) Property → 1. Perm and essential differences 2. Perm but not essential (khasa) 3. Not perm and not essential (araz) Ibn Sina conceptionalization → Most basic concept: existance Theology (wujud) Metaphysical Cosmology Verification Does a necessary being through itself exist? (God) Does God exist? Any argument to prove existance.. You assume existance to prove existance There is no proof. There is no argument For all Xs that exist (Reality) Necessary Possible in themselves (MIND) Existence (Wujud) is the most fundamental concept Necessary X exists and it cannot not exist (X exists through itself) Necessary Through itself (Its exist-- depends Necessary through another (Its exist-- depends Possibility X exists, but it can exist it cannot not y given (to the left) it cannot not exist period) Necessary by itself means its existence does not depend upon anyone else Ex. God Necessary by another when its existence depends upon something else. Necessary on a condition. Ex. 2 apples.. Add 2 more apple.. Now we have 4 apples. Necessarily we have 4… necessarily 4 apples exist.. But having 4 apple is condition on the 2 apples.. The existence of the 4 apples depend on the 2 and the next 2. Possible in itself .. unicorn Steve has necessary through another Dragon exist only in mind and not reality so possible in itself If something is possible in itself.. Is it necessary through another - If X is necessary through another then X is possible in itself Necessary being 1. It can only be one - Why you cannot have more than one NB through itself? - They would share some part in common.. And if you were to take away the part in common .. they must have a shared core but different aspects. 2. Cannot be material - It would compose of internal constructive material.. Why you cannot have more than one NB through itself? - They would share some part in common.. And if you were to take away the part in common .. they must have a shared core but different aspects. NB1 = S + D1 NB2 = S + D2 Material Matter Form NB = Matter + Form Diff + genus Ibn Sina’s Cosmological Argument for the Existence of a Necessity Being in itself: Necessary Being (NB) 1. God is intellect in a that is his case; The intellect, the intellecting, and the inlected are identical 2. 2 Aristotle. God knows himself; i. God does not know particulars; ii. Ibn Sina, God knows himself iii. God knows particulars but not through themselves , but through himself Knowledge Known and knower. There is a process of knowing Intellected intelecting intellect Knower is steve Known is steve Know is steve Intelect is god Intelecting is god Intelected is god All 3 is identical 1. Does god know paticulars? 2. If he does, then how? Ibn Sina: God’s knowledge of particulars a) God knows particulars through himself b) God cannot know particular in themselves 1) God is the first cause, and therefore implies the whole uniserve, including all the particulars 2) God knows himself as the most universal principle of the creation 3) God knows everything includes all the particulars through himself (WHY?) Continue off #3 God cannot know particulars while they are changing God cannot know particulars in so far as they are corruptible and undergo corruption (Fissad) which means corruption… which means decomposed Corruptible requires an object joined to matter. It has to be material. It requires sensation or imagination. Sensation or imagination requires material Corruptible Object + matter Sensation in Material Aristitoles denies god did not know particulars God cannot know particulars when they are changing God cannot know them through themselves ● God cannot change ○ Why? Because he is a perfect being, he is the first cause there is nothing else to cause him to change. There is no reason there is no higher place to go. ■ Are subject to change ■ Are material Paticulars After midterm/spring break Ibn Sina’s Metaphysic ● Theology → God = NB 1. Def. the most fundamental concept 2. Def his modal ontology 3. Prove the exist of a NB (God) 4. Proves the attributes of such NB - intelegent , no body, ultimate good 5. NB is the Efficient cause of the Cosmos ● Cosmology Is the Cosmos Eternal? - Yes! It is (WHY?) - How God can be the efficient cause of an eternal cosmos? a. The cosomos is eternal b. God is the efficient cause of the cosmos a. Causality → 4 causes 1. Efficient cause 2. Material cause 3. Formal cause 4. Final cause 1. Creating 2. How it was crafted the wood There are two different types of Efficient cause 1. Natural efficient cause 2. Metaphysical efficient cause Natural E.C - The cause of motion in the cosmos - This happens in respect to different categories a. Motion in quality b. Motion in quantity c. Motion in place d. Motion in position Motion in quality - Pot on the oven the pot is cold but then it becomes hot - First the pot was cold - But then it turned to a hot pot - Alteration from cold to hot - Leave a while the hot pot turns to cold - The quality is from cold to hot - Quality is temperature Motion in Quantity - Growing or shrinking - We grow Motion in Place - From moving from one place to another place Motion in position - Turning - Just moving without moving spaces - Moving in the same place - Rotation - Place is the same but just movement in one spot Metaphysical efficient cause - It is the cause of exist itself - Absolute existence → God is the metaphysical cause of the universe - Gives forms to formless substance to create different species God would be metaphysical with absolute existence a. Causality → 4 causes 5. Efficient cause 6. Material cause 7. Formal cause 8. Final cause B. The doctin of causal necessity (CN) C1 c2 c3 cause → effect Essentially ordered cause Active powers + Passive powers C→E no temporal gap between the c & the e The cause necessities its effect The doctorin There are no temporal gap between cause and effect Why the cause necessities its effected? 1. Fire has the active power to burn 2. Cotton has the passive power to be burned 3. Let put the fire (and all the relevant active powers) in contact with the cotton (and all the relevant passive powers) 4. Let’s assume that the expected effect, that is, the burning of the cotton does not occur. 5. In this case, one of the true policy can explain the plem a. The set of active powers is not complete b. The set of passive powers is not complete 6. But (a) and (b) both lead to contradiction (WHY?) 7. (a) and (b) are false 8. As soon as we have all the relevant causes of an effect, the effect must be accured, i.e there should be no temporal gap between the cause and its effect That means that the cause necessities its effect If you have the cause but not the effect you caused a contradiction The cosmos is the burning Temporal cause Atemporal cause Temporal , leg moves and hits the chair the chair moved T1 is the leg kicking T2 is the chair moving Cause happens at T1, effect at T2 Atemporal , hand moving on ring, what moves the ring? The hand. But the ring and hand moves the same time simotaniously Cause and effect happens at T1 God would be metaphysical with absolute existence God is efficient cause and the cosmos are eternal. whether or not god is the complete causes for the cosmos NB Cosmos What is the source of X Nothing is outside of god God by necessity obtains all the causes of the cosmos So god is the efficient cause and the cosmos are eternal Will T1 NB didnt have will T2 NB + will C? The will has to be in T1 if it is there then cosmos are also there God is beyond any change so there cannot be changes If you add will it has to be there from very beginning Tuesday 3/19/19 Ghazali vs. Ibn Sina. a. Miracles are not possible - Assumption: D.C.N By necessity you should have the effect No one including God can prevent it from happening B. God cannot know particulares while they are changing ● Assumption: ○ Causal theory of knowledge (causal effect from the knowledge) (any change in you creates a different effect on someone else, knowledge of you changes with the change in me. It created a different causal effect on me) ○ God is beyond any change Ghazali Miracles are possible. Why? Because the D.C (doctin cause) is false. 1. Experience is the source of any material ideas (active power)Fire Necessity Burning (passive power) Delation Cause ---------- Effect 2. There is no observational trace of the so called “necessary relation” All we can see is the cause and its effect that happen side by side 3. Causal necessity is a myth 4. Sina everytime we see the cause we see its effect side by side, one form a psychological habit of seeing them together. 5. The fact that cause and its effect happen side by side is due to God’s will. 6. Ghazali does not … That there is a volad because cause and its effect sll he rejects the relatic of necessity being Mental Habit Cause --------- Effect World has a regularity in it because God wills according to this regular pattern Everytime cause happens and the effect it’s because of God’s will. If you have the total cause no one, not even god can prevent it from happening it’s beyonds god’s control Miracles are possible because Ghazali says the fact they happen side by side is due to God’s will. Every time you have fire and cotton God creates burning side to side to them. Abraham is in the fire all the cause is present but it is all up on to god not the creature of causal necessity. Those who believe in miracles believe in something mythical. Those who believe miracles are crazy (Ibn Sina belief) Thursday 3/21/19 Ibn Sina - Miracles are not possible Because the D.C.N doctrin cause necessity If you have the cause it is impossible not to have the effect Meaning no one even god can’t prevent it Ghazal : Miracles are possible Its a psychological connect that doesn’t exist Because D.C.N is false Based off experience for D.C.N but Ghazal says we can’t see it or prove it or observe it to see the cause in reality. It’s just a myth Causality God created the world. Whenever we have the cause God created the effect What is the source of what we proceed as causality? Why do we perceive this relation of cause and effect? It’s a mental habit. A trick our brain plays on us If there is necessity you can have the cause and not the effect. God’s way Ibn Sina: God cannot know particulars while they are changing (a) The causal theory of Kn. X (b) God is beyond any change ✓ Subject of Knowledge causly Object (a) If the object of knowledge changes, the knower would change accordingly Ghazali God can know particulars while they are changing (a) God is beyond any change ✓ (b) The relational Theory of knowledge X Knowledge for god is a relation with all the creatures God has a one chunk of knowledge timelessly Knowledge is a relation of kind between the object of knowledge and the knower Ghazali How can you fix the knowledge Knowledge based on perception Think of actors and directors/writers. Subject of Knowledge causly Object Knowledge without Rk This relation is essential = the relation is essential to the knower To knowledge => => if relation changes then the knower has to change Relation changes The knower changes The object of knowledge = particulars Knower = God Tuesday 3/26/19 Islamic Philosophy 1. Historical background (great Philosophy) 2. Metaphysics a. Theology (conception of God) b. Cosmology (conception of cosmos) 3. Ibn Sina Theology a. b. c. d. e. f. 4. Necessary being NB is efficent cost Exist. Of NB God cannot know particulars while they’re changing The cosmos is eternal Miracles are not possible E&F is cosmology Ghazali a. Argued against D.C.N to create a room for miracle b. Argued against the causal theory of Kn to show that God can know particulars while they are change. Ibn Rushd Reason vs Revelation 1. Ibn Sina a. There is no conflict between reason and revelation because they both refer to the same truth. If x is approved by reason, than x is approved by the revelation as well. And, if x is approved by revelation, then x is approved by the reason as well. There is no conflict they are all referring to the same truth 2. Ghazali a. There are some conflict between reason and revelation. And in such cases, revelation takes priority. b. Revelation reveals the realm beyond reason. 3. Ibn Rushd a. There are some (apparent) conflict between reason and revelation. In such causes, reason takes priority, and the content of revelation should be subject to alleseveral inter. i. The truth does not contradict truth It is consistant with the script In the script It is not consist X Is not in the scriptor Gods hands is above all hands Metaphor his influence is above other God is the most powerful and uses the metaphorical language Give priority to reason. Reason is used in the surface of revelation They follow scriptor until the demonstrated reason Muslim Theologics (Mutikalimmn) Theology = Kalam Mutazilitm (Reationalists) Asharita (Traditionalists) (moral obligation) God Perfectly good All - Powerful There are certain things that He can do anything he wants. He could not and God can do evil. would not do God is not perfectly good. That is evil/unscript deads. God’s proven is limited Mutazila’s two major ideas a. God is just (it is impossible for God to do injustice) b. God is One (There is no multiplicity in God whatsoever) Division Justice (‘Adl) Go a) God cannot but honor his promises d justic e hu ma MR FW (free will) a b 1. God’s promise callf you do good. You would be rounded and if you do evil you are to be punished Debate #2 : If Cosmos are eternal God cannot be the efficient cause. April 11th Tuesday’s class 4/2/19 Mutazilita Metaphysical issue Moral issue (Tawhid = The omeness of (‘Adl = Justice) Ahl ul adl wa Tawhid GOD: restrictions and limits on god’s power i) The requirements of justice ii) Human free will 1) God’s promise: If humans do good, then they will be rewarded and if they do evil, then they will be punished. Reward & Punish assume moral responsibility, and morally responsibility implies fw (free will) 2) Humans are free, and therefore morally responsible for their deeds (Self-determination) unlimited freedom of choice. Humans themselves are creators of their acts. 3) God by necessity is just and fair. 4) Since human’s eternal felicity is at risk, God is merally required to provide guidance for humans (Lutf Wajib) Sending the Prophets. 5) The Problem of Evil a) FW defence b) The Law of Compensation (Al-’iwaz) 6) Euthyphro a) X is good, because it is commanded by God Or X is commanded by God, because X is good? Devine Command Theory Mutazilitah Natural Law Theory 7) Intermedary state of the grave sinner (Fasiq) W1 W2 FW No Fw E Al-aslah Salutary God Prophets Right Wrong Men Fw Reward Punished Thursday class 4/4/19 Mutazilita Moral God’s justice Metaphysical God’s oneness The source of evil in this world - 2 parts of theory, 1 humans free will , 2 devine justice - Grave sinners, they commit grave sins, they are neither good or bad they are in between, because they can always ask for forgiveness. Literal understanding of the scripturn Orthodoxy Anthorpomorphisw Without knowing how Doctrin of Bila Kayf (without how- without knowing how you do certain things) Mutazilis view 1) God is one in the purest sense of one-ness. There is no multiplicity in God. 2) Metaphorical interpeted of the text (T’awil) 3) God’s attribution a) In the case of God, God’s attribution are identical with God’s essence i) (going from small to tall, you don’t change) ii) Essence and Attribute iii) Essence can change when the attribute stays the same iv) Ex. X is a knowledegable person, if the knowledge increases he is still the same person 4) God’s words (the Qur’an) a) THe nature of the Qur’an as God’s words b) Mechanism of recent God’s words (a) The Qur’an is created (b) God creates sound in material mediums All these accidents together create the reality at any given particular thing ‘Asharities Metaphysic s Occasionali sm Atomis m Pow er Moral Atoms and their accidents have no power. If they want to create body they need to come together and form different bodies. Any body that forms out of Atoms, any Accident + Body Moment First two moments, X is sitting, God creates the whole new universe every second. Accident + Body Power : 1) Original → God 2) Derived → Humans (other creatures) Ex. hitting the bottle to the computer, it’s not the bottle fault it’s the power of your hand Theory of Kasb (acquisition) Mind God Creator of action, God. God Created this world simutaniously Real World Human Tuesday 4/9/19 Mutazilita God’s justice God’s oneness His essence is as same as his attributes. Arash → Being Professor at MC → Sn + Em = L (essential property of Arash) didn’t aquire that property, he is the property God’s Knowledge is like the essential property, he’s not aquiring it, he is that property Same as his essence Asharite Power What is good yesterday isn’t good today There’s nothing external to God’s will Everything is due to God’s will Kash Atomism All power belongs to God Ex. Someone sitting in the room and someone leaving the room God recreated the second one with property or accident. Original → God Kash Derived → Men Author of our action.. Us due to free will No it’s by God you are allocate for the action The Grave Sinners They are either believers or not believers Believer never disobeys God Why are they not a non believer? Sense of regret Grave sins ex: Creating corruption on earth Talking behind people’s backs Ghazali (‘Asharism) Abdul Jabbar (Mutazili) _____________ Moral obligation a) What is the nature of Moral Obligation b) Is God Himself subject to some Moral Obligation Ghazali Argument a) The Nature of Moral Obligation = command. i) Linguistic act (expression) ii) The person expresses a desire to be fulfilled iii) The person issues the command is a person of higher rank iv) It is accompanied by a threat of a punishment for one’s compliance. Moral obligation is nothing but a command Externalistic approach to “Good” The notion of “Good” Two meanings 1. Secular Objective = O Action = A (helps achieve it) A is God for S with respect to O. Action A if it helps achieve your goal it is good if it does not it is not. But A is neither good or bad A → O it is a means to an end Fact of universe Objective fact 2. Religions The DOer is approved by God It all depends on God’s will Moral Obligation Good/Evil God’s Will God is morally obligated to do A Debate Infinite regress of mover? Necessary being is beyond any change? Why is God all powerful? - Neo Plat argument Believing God is the efficient cause in a metaphysical sense Cosmos are eternal As long as God exists the cosmos exist Thursday 4/18/19 Ghazali 1) Nature of M.O (moral obligation) 2) Whether or not God is subject to M.O There are a source of command that should come from some demand He is not subject to moral obligation Steve is the moral object “Steve! You shall not drive your car” “Not driving his car” What obligation steve to follow God’s commands? O1 “Follow, God’s commands” * Steve is M.O to not drive his car” Why * ? ** Because (* is commanded by God.) why**? *** Because (** is commanded by God.) C1: “we ought to follow God’s Command.” Why c1? C1 is morally obligatory because c1 is just. Infinite regression. He tried to get out of this loop. We ought to follow God’s command because it is just. There is something morally obligatory but it is not commanded by God. Ghazali says you better do it it is more beneficial for you, it requires less risks on your part. It is too risky to disobey God. There must be at least ONE COMMAND which morally obligatory and it is independ of God’s command. Abdul Jabbar C.E1 Command + but Negative: (M.O is not a C.E2 Command - but 1) Nature of Moral Obligation Positive: ( 1. Doing x must be good 2. Pefray from doing = Doing x is S’s moral obligation. If ref from doing x is evil All things considered evil Act_Token Particular situation Ex. stealing something specific Stealing someone’s pen Act_Type General Ex. stealing Saying stealing is bad Act_Token Act_Type Evil by necessity (Injustice) Prima Facia evil But all things considered could by good 4/23/19 Tuesday’s class Ghazali: a) What is the nature of obligation b) Is God subject to any M.O? (moral obligation) For Ghazali, it is possible for God to do evil (wrong doing/injustice) Logically Possible Impossible obligations Ghazali says you can’t issue that command but that’s perfectly fine because maybe you want to serve a different purpose Morally Possible It is logically possible and morally possible for God to do Evil. Abdul Jabbar: The Nature of M.O (Moral Negative. M.O is not a Positive. It doesn’t matter who the commander or obligator is. The Action is wrong. Even if it’s God to command. The wrongness of the action The nature of act itself is determine if it is an obligation not from God Taklif / wajib or wajud Wajib is a duty Taklif is The difference between Taklif and wajib Taklif: Power There’s a power that compells to follow the command Force Wajib: Reason Convinces Taklif Wajib Power Reason Force Convince You shall not kill: Wajib Give me your money: Taklif 1st case: Steve planned to cheat on final exam and professor finds out “Steve I’m watching you, if you even try to cheat I’m going to give you an F” Acted on the norm of “you shall not cheat” 2nd case: He Believes it’s wrong to cheat and doesn’t cheat In both cases you’re doing the right thing. Why? 1st case: external pressure (force) fear of punishment Why? 2nd case: Because that is the right thing to do. 1st : Acting in accordance with one’s duty 2nd : Acting out of one’s duty The commander is not God but the Goodness of the action You do the taklif because you fear punishment Moral obligation comes from the force of the reason God’s command (in general) ought to be followed. Why? Because 1) We owe everything to God 2) It is morally obligatory to be grateful to one’s benefactory 3) We ought to be grateful to our God 
Purchase answer to see full attachment