Science as Divine Signs: Al-Sanūsī’s Framework of Legal (sharʿī), Nomic (ʿādī), and Rational (ʿaqlī) Judgements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses the salient area of Islam and science, with special reference to Imam al-Sanūsī’s framework, which is in and of itself a commendable endeavour, as it introduces some underexplored areas of the Islamic tradition and brings into conversation with contemporary conversations.
The paper is well-structured through the threefold typology of legal, nomic, and rational judgments, which provides a clear theoretical framework for readers.
Areas for improvement:
Perhaps providing some more simplified explanations of technical Arabic terms, specially those lying in the title.
Also, what makes al-Sanūsī’s framework unique compared to earlier ones, if there are any? In other words, a paragraph or two situating al-Sanūsī’s contribution within the map of the Islamic theological tradition would help readers appreciate this contribution more.
Author Response
1. Simplification of technical Arabic terms
The Arabic terms used in the article have been clarified as much as possible while ensuring their accuracy. Given the nature of the material, these terms remain essential and cannot be entirely removed. Efforts have been made to provide necessary explanations to aid accessibility for readers unfamiliar with Islamic theological terminology.
2. Al-Sanūsī’s framework in relation to earlier traditions
This concern has been addressed in the introduction (see highlighted sections). The revisions provide a clearer contextualization of al-Sanūsī’s framework in relation to earlier theological traditions, demonstrating its development within the broader Ashʿarī discourse. A paragraph has been added to outline how al-Sanūsī’s model builds upon and diverges from the approaches of al-Bāqillānī, al-Juwaynī, and al-Ghazālī, illustrating its unique contributions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsScience as a Divine Signs: Al-Sanusi's Framework of Legal (shar'i), Nomic (cadi), and Rational (caqli) Judgments
The paper presents a highly interesting and precise account of the theological framework of Imam Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi, with a particular focus on the relationship between Islamic theology and science. The Author treats the topic in a very clear and informed way, making a valuable contribution to the field, as the theological framework under discussion is not widely known, at least in the Northern part of the world.
In my opinion, and mainly for this reason, the article can certainly be published because of the clarity of the exposition. However, in my opinion, one essential change should be made (see Part B1 below); three minor changes (A1, A2, and B2) are recommended, too.
A).
Only two small observations.
A.1. Line 40: it is not clear to me what the expression “as-it” in the formulation “…its framework as-it or…” means?
A.2. Lines 539, 542, and 544, most probably should be: 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 as a reference to specific Sections.
B).
B.1. The Author states in the introduction that “this article aligns with the first approach, which seeks to engage with modern scientific ideas by drawing directly on the Islamic intellectual tradition” (44-45). This is a valid and acceptable procedure, as it informs the reader of the point of view from which general considerations will be formulated. This point of view is legitimate, whether it is Islamic or Christian theology. However, the Author’s subsequent reference to “colonialisation” and “decolonisation” narrations (766-785) is somewhat perplexing. Could this be indicative of a perceived impediment to the dissemination of al-Sanusi’s works and his theological framework within the Muslim world and among Muslim intellectuals? If so, decolonisation might arguably serve to enhance this situation. Nevertheless, the veracity of this claim remains rather uncertain. The reference to the debate on colonisation/decolonisation, proposed in a few lines, creates more confusion than clarity. In fact, it appears to be an effort to address a problem, not clearly stated, with reference to an answer that is too vague to furnish any considerable solution.
For this reason, I strongly suggest, and in practice indicate as a condition for the acceptance of the text for the publication, the omission of the lines (766-785) as they do not contribute to the theme of the article, which is the science-theology relation in the work of Imam Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi.
B.2. There is in the paper a statement which, to the best of my comprehension, necessitates further scrutiny. This is due to the fact that the Author embarks on an exploration of the relationship between Science and Theology, the specific topic of the paper (see: Keywords, 15).
Lines 743-746: “In light of this, new phenomena discovered by science should not be perceived as threatening to Islamic theology. So long as these discoveries do not contradict core principles derived from revelation, they are not only acceptable but also welcomed as extensions of human understanding” (italics mine).
However, if these discoveries were to contradict the fundamental principles of revelation, the question arises as to which of these principles would prevail. This issue bears resemblance to the so-called 'Galileo affair'. It would be interesting to ask whether a case similar to this one is recognised within Islamic theology. As I understand it, lines 743-746 formulate the principle of science's submission to religion/theology, a principle that is reinforced in lines 4 and 12: "the theological framework of Imam Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi […] positions science as an integral part of Islamic theology". If this is the case, then science is not considered to be an autonomous source of knowledge, but rather a means for exploring "an ongoing expression of God's volition" (793). From this perspective, the question of whether science represents a theological locus is, of course, easily answered in the affirmative way.
I think that the Author should elaborate this point a little bit. In fact, it is not clear how such a submission of science to theology can be described as “a harmonious integration of reason, revelation, and empirical observation” (794-795).
Author Response
A.1 – Clarification of ‘as-it’ (Line 40)
The phrase has been revised for clarity to ensure the intended meaning is unambiguous.
A.2 – Section numbering (Lines 539, 542, 544)
The numbering has been corrected to accurately reflect Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
B.1 – Discussion on decolonization (Lines 766-785)
This section has been removed from the main body of the article and is now included as footnote 4. The decision to retain this discussion in a footnote is based on comments received from other peers. The underlying point remains relevant: if Ashʿarī theology presents a positive outlook, why has it not translated into flourishing material conditions? The note clarifies that a positive theological framework does not necessarily result in positive material realities.
B.2 – Science and revelation (Lines 743-746)
This issue has been addressed in footnote 3. Expanding on this discussion within the main text would lead to a digression, as it raises broader theological and epistemological concerns beyond the scope of the article. Instead, references have been provided to direct readers to relevant discussions where this issue has been explored in depth at both general and specific levels.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper claims to show that Al-Sanūsī’s, and more widely Ash`arism’s, “framework” is perfect for dealing with science, classical or modern. However, all is does is “show” that this “framework” is God-centric and is therefore an attractive approach for Muslim scientists who want to keep their research and their faith in harmony. But a God-centric worldview is common to many theological and philosophical traditions, Islamic and other, and one does not require Ash`arism, much less Al-Sanūsī to achieve that kind of harmony. Moreover, little of the “framework” of Al- Sanūsī (legal, nomic, rational) is directly related to science. The authors make an efforts to draw connections (of course, there are legal issues in life, e.g. medical matters, that relate to both science and Islamic jurisprudence), but that is all artificial and fails to convince that this framework is a useful one for today’s issues of science and religion, which tend to be more theological and philosophical.
In fact, this paper is just thinly veiled proselytizing for Ash`arism. This theological school is referred to over 30 times, with “arguments” not only repeated ad nauseum but sometimes claimed from other major scholars without credit and blatantly attributed to Ash`arism. For example, the idea of a ‘necessary being’, which is usually attributed to Ibn Sina (Avicenna), who presented it in full, though Al-Farabi had made the argument before, and some premises of it can be found in Plato and Aristotle, is here credited to Ash`ari theologians (“articulated” by Ash`ari theologians, we are told)! Likewise for the Kalam cosmological argument, which is usually attributed to Al-Kindi, though originally propounded by Philoponus, is here attributed to Ash`ari theologians! Amazingly, the only reference given to the whole discussion of the arguments for the existence of God is a book by al-Razi (12th c.) that was edited in 2024!
Likewise, the whole idea that “science” (never defined here and never presented in the way modern science presents itself, i.e. a systematic and rational study of the world around us) can be viewed or conducted as seeking to know God’s ways is presented as an Ash`ari approach, even though it is adopted by countless scholars past and present (Al-Biruni wrote about this explicitly and many others through the ages) and in various cultures.
Either the authors don’t know any of the above (hard to believe) or they are brashly pursuing their agenda in thinly veiled fashion.
The authors’ boldness is also exhibited in their repeated usage of variations of “demonstrated” (I counted 13 such occurrences), each time they want to say “proposed” or “suggested” or “showed”. The same boldness is seen in pronouncements such as “[Al-Sanūsī] became renowned for his intellectual rigor…”, with no supporting justification for such a claim, not even a reference. Likewise for the claim that “Al-Sanūsī is an especially significant figure for examining the relationship between Islamic theology and science in modern contexts.” This claim is not “demonstrated” anywhere. All we are given is an overly long exposition of Al-Sanūsī’s “framework” (legal, nomic, rational, the legal part is particularly overdrawn though quite irrelevant), which somehow constitutes a “theological” framework (it makes everything God-centric, we are told at the end), though no serious theological issues are discussed, and somehow this becomes a valid framework for science in modern contexts!
The authors write: “By affirming the broader scope of the rational sphere, the Ashʿarī framework integrates science into a more expansive theological worldview, where empirical observation is one pathway among many for understanding the complexities of creation.” First, the “broader scope of the rational sphere” is affirmed by various other schools of theology and jurisprudence, not to mention philosophy; in fact, this is not something that Ash`arism is famous for. Secondly, and more importantly, while the statement “understanding the complexities of creation” is vague enough to prevent strong criticism, it is a barely veiled attempt to sweep the rug under empirical science in its claim and approach to understanding “the complexities of creation”, i.e. natural phenomena. Thirdly, the authors should mention at least some of the “many” pathways they have in mind for understanding the “complexities of creation”. If the authors want to claim that Ash`arism rejects science’s mandate to studying and explaining natural phenomena, they should state that clearly so that scholars can debate their claim. But to sneak such assertions in a scholarly paper is disingenuous.
And in passing, I must mention that the examples used to illustrate Al-Sanūsī’s categories are overly simplistic (sum of angles in a triangle, a tree in a forest, etc.). And btw, it wasn’t “logically possible for Albert Einstein to win the Nobel Prize in Biology”.
Oh, and most often, book references are thrown in without page numbers; somehow the reader is supposed to trust that this or that book does make that point in some way somewhere. For example, did Brentjes (2018) really assert that “Science, within the Ashʿarī framework, has historically been pursued as a means of exploring the manifestations of divine will, fulfilling ethical responsibilities, and reflecting upon the contingency of creation”? Can we get page numbers, or better a verbatim quote? Similarly, did King (1996) and Morrison (2013) claim that in the Islamic civilization, “astronomy was developed to refine the precision of prayer timings, fasting schedules, and the determination of the lunar calendar”? Any page numbers? There’s a world between stating that Muslim astronomers worked on those problems and between claiming that in the Islamic civilization “astronomy was developed” in that aim.
Another major issue with this paper is that in their attempt to promote Ash`arism, the authors resort to strawman arguments such as that laws of nature are “imposed by nature”, thus intimating that whoever believes in inviolable laws of nature is giving nature divine attributes. There are countless scientists in the world who firmly uphold the concept of “laws of nature” and believe that they come from God, not “imposed” by nature. One doesn’t have to be Ash`ari to see God behind all of creation one way or another.
And how does that long (though trivial) discussion of biomedical research and ethical considerations relate to Al-Sanūsī or even Ash`arism in general? And how is scientific inquiry “shaped by Islamic jurisprudence” (emphasis added)?
The authors also write “new phenomena discovered by science should not be perceived as threatening to Islamic theology. So long as these discoveries do not contradict core principles derived from revelation, they are not only acceptable but also welcomed as extensions of human understanding”. Didn’t heliocentrism disturb religious dogmas? In fact, some Muslim ulamas have rejected it into the 21st century! One could also mention human evolution and other topics, which vary from one tradition to another (e.g. age of the earth). “So long as these discoveries do not contradict core principles”: who determines what is “core” and when there is a “contradiction”? Won’t each tradition or theological school have its own objections to discoveries?
I strongly urge the authors to adopt a more objective approach and reserved style (drop words like “profound”, “robust”, and “demonstrates”). Through the paper, it unfortunately quickly became apparent that the authors’ knowledge is flawed, and their approach is far from objective. Indeed, the paper is flawed because it credits Al-Sanūsī and his (basic) framework with an approach (“Science, within this framework, becomes not just an intellectual pursuit but a pathway to uncover divine wisdom, fulfil ethical responsibilities, and deepen one’s spiritual connection to the Creator”) that is widely known and adopted across schools and traditions, and it pushes a blatant and gratuitous Ash`ari agenda.
Author Response
1, Framing al-Sanūsī’s framework as a theological model
The article now explicitly frames al-Sanūsī’s framework as a theological model, incorporating references to methodological discussions in both Islamic and Christian theology. This revision clarifies that the objective is to examine al-Sanūsī’s model within a broader theological landscape, rather than presenting it as the only viable approach.
2. Claims of exclusivity regarding Ashʿarism
Sections that may have implied that al-Sanūsī’s framework—or Ashʿarism more broadly—offers an exclusive approach to the relationship between theology and science have been revised. The discussion now acknowledges that other Islamic traditions, as well as broader philosophical and theological traditions, have engaged with similar themes. Though to be clear, we never attributed exclusivity to this article.
3. Attribution of philosophical arguments (Necessary Being, Kalām Cosmological Argument)
This concern has been addressed in footnote 2. The revisions clarify that the focus is not on the origination of these arguments but rather their instrumentalization within the Ashʿarī framework. The role of Ashʿarī theologians in utilizing and adapting these arguments within their theological discourse is now explicitly stated.
4. Precision in referencing and citations
The article references a range of historical sources, including many Ashʿarī theologians. For instance, al-Rāzī’s Tafsīr contains an extensive engagement with the available scientific knowledge of his time, illustrating how such discourse was incorporated into theological reflections. Further citations have been provided to strengthen these claims. Regarding page numbers, they were not necessary in cases where the referenced articles on prayer fundamentally support the argument being made.
5. Use of terminology such as ‘demonstrated’
The language has been adjusted to ensure a more measured and objective tone. Terms like ‘demonstrated’ have been replaced with ‘proposed,’ ‘suggested,’ or other appropriate alternatives where necessary.
6. Clarification on the relationship between science and theology
The discussion has been elaborated to clarify how al-Sanūsī’s framework conceptualizes science within a theological worldview without negating the empirical and methodological autonomy of scientific inquiry. The revisions make it explicit that while science is understood within a metaphysical framework, this does not mean that it dismisses its empirical rigour. Of course, there will be points of contentions regarding how to handle things like miracle, which we have highlighted is a point of debate in the contemporary Islam and Science space.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read the revised version of the paper at hand with great attention. I hereby state that the Author has taken into account all my suggestions and introduced them in the paper in a properly contextualised way. Consequently, I declare that the paper, in that revised form, can be published. I would like to thank the Author for taking my suggestions into account, as the paper contributes to the better understanding of the science-faith dialogue.
Author Response
We are sincerely grateful for your thoughtful engagement with the original manuscript and for your constructive suggestions. Your comments helped refine both the clarity and depth of the article, and we deeply appreciate your acknowledgement that the revisions have successfully addressed your concerns.
Thank you especially for affirming the contribution of this work to the broader dialogue between science and faith. It is encouraging to know that the article now reads as a clearer and more meaningful contribution to this ongoing discussion. We are grateful for your support and generosity throughout the review process.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCosmetic changes cannot be considered as an adequate revision of deeply flawed paper.
Author Response
In the second round of review, Reviewer 3 asserts that “cosmetic changes” cannot fix what is described as a fundamentally "deeply flawed" paper. However, no new substantive feedback or engagement with the revised manuscript was provided. As a result, we must return to the original set of critiques to demonstrate that what has been done in the revised article is far more than cosmetic.
In fact, we have systematically addressed each of the reviewer’s concerns—clarifying our language, strengthening our sourcing and examples, and explaining the scope and intent of the argument. The revised article is not proselytizing, nor is it polemical. It is an academically rigorous attempt to show how scientific inquiry can be meaningfully engaged from within at least one theological tradition, namely Ashʿarism, using al-Sanūsī’s structured framework of legal, nomic, and rational judgments.
This was precisely the aim of the special issue: to explore how different theological traditions understand science as a locus theologicus. The article contributes to this conversation by articulating how an internally coherent Islamic theological model engages with science—not to exclude other models, but to offer one reasoned and historically grounded perspective. It is possible the reviewer may not have fully taken into account this broader purpose of the special issue when evaluating the submission.
What follows is a detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewer’s original comments, demonstrating that every critique has been directly and substantially addressed.
1. Allegation of "proselytizing" for Ashʿarism
Reviewer: “This paper is just thinly veiled proselytizing for Ashʿarism.”
Response:
We respectfully disagree. Nowhere in the article do we claim that Ashʿarism is the only valid theological model. In fact, we explicitly acknowledge the diversity of theological frameworks within the Islamic tradition (Muʿtazilī, Falāsifa, Māturīdī, etc.), stating that the article represents only one approach among many. We also note that this article is not concerned with resolving inter-theological disputes.
What we do argue is that al-Sanūsī’s framework is internally coherent and underexplored in this domain, and that it offers an interesting methodological lens to think about science as a locus of theology. This is analogous to how other authors use Lemaître, Teilhard, or McGrath within their own traditions. This is not proselytizing; it is the use of a rigorous, tradition-based theological structure to contribute to a broader scholarly conversation.
2. Claim that “God-centric worldviews” are not unique to Ashʿarism
Reviewer: “A God-centric worldview is common to many theological and philosophical traditions... one does not require Ashʿarism.”
Response:
We fully agree, and this is precisely acknowledged in the article. We never argue that a God-centric worldview is unique to Ashʿarism. Instead, we argue that al-Sanūsī’s tripartite framework (legal, nomic, rational) offers a specific structural and epistemological model that systematizes how reason, revelation, and empirical reality interrelate. This kind of methodological framework is different from a mere affirmation of theism or divine order—it is procedural and has implications for how science is understood within a theologically structured worldview.
3. The charge that al-Sanūsī’s framework is “irrelevant” to modern science
Reviewer: “Little of the ‘framework’ of Al- Sanūsī ... is directly related to science.”
Response:
In the revised article, we clarified that this framework is not a theology of any specific scientific discipline but a meta-framework that structures how theological reasoning can make room for scientific inquiry. Al-Sanūsī’s categories—legal, nomic, rational—are shown to correspond to epistemic structures: revelation, empirical habit (ʿāda), and logical necessity. We explain how this model helps Muslims conceptualize science as a meaningful part of theological reflection, especially in terms of causality, contingency, ethical application (e.g. in biomedical cases), and the limits of empirical observation.
This is not "irrelevant"—it is directly related to how theology and science intersect epistemologically and ethically.
4. Accusation of misattribution: Necessary being, cosmological argument, etc.
Reviewer: “...attributed to Ashʿarī theologians rather than Avicenna, al-Kindī, etc.”
Response:
We clarified the language in the revised article to acknowledge the shared intellectual lineage of these arguments. We state clearly that the arguments were developed in varying forms by different schools (including Avicenna and al-Kindī) and that Ashʿarī theologians adopted, adapted, and systematized them. For example, al-Rāzī’s use of the contingency argument builds on these earlier traditions, but his integration into Ashʿarī kalām marks an important evolution that is relevant to our analysis.
In short: we do not claim Ashʿarism invented these arguments, only that it made them theologically operative within a particular tradition—which is valid scholarly ground to stand on.
5. Claims of exaggeration: e.g. “demonstrated” used too often, or unsupported statements
Reviewer: “Repeated usage of ‘demonstrated’, unsourced praise of al-Sanūsī’s intellectual rigor...”
Response:
We have revised the language throughout the manuscript to adopt a more reserved tone, replacing words like “demonstrated” with “argued,” “suggested,” or “proposed” where appropriate. We also either removed or supported evaluative statements, including references when noting al-Sanūsī’s influence and rigor, such as Olson (2020), Fawda (2019), and others.
6. Accusation of vague or misleading claims about the Ashʿarī approach to science
Reviewer: “This approach [‘science as a way of uncovering God’s will’] is not unique to Ashʿarism… This is sweeping…”
Response:
We now clarify in the revised version that this notion is not unique to Ashʿarism, and cite examples from other traditions. However, we explain how within Ashʿarism, occasionalism and the idea of ʿāda (divine habit) provide a unique theological grammar for how regularities in nature are conceptualized.
We’re not claiming novelty in seeing science as spiritually significant—we’re showing how this particular framework structures that view.
7. Misrepresentation of the nomic sphere as denying science's explanatory power
Reviewer: “The paper insinuates that Ashʿarism rejects science’s mandate to explain natural phenomena…”
Response:
This is a significant misunderstanding. In Ashʿarism, science is not rejected—it is reframed. Regularities are seen as customs of God, not intrinsic to nature. This is explained with reference to occasionalism, and we argue it does not undermine empirical science, but instead provides a contingent metaphysical foundation for it. We explicitly say this does not negate the value or functionality of scientific explanation.
We have added further clarification and citations to avoid this kind of misreading.
8. The biomedical ethics section being “irrelevant”
Reviewer: “How does that long discussion of biomedical research relate to al-Sanūsī?”
Response:
This section illustrates the practical application of al-Sanūsī’s categories—especially the legal and nomic dimensions—in concrete, contemporary contexts. Islamic bioethics is a field where empirical knowledge (nomic), ethical judgment (legal), and rational analysis (rational) intersect. We are showing how al-Sanūsī’s tripartite framework is not abstract, but has real-world relevance, especially in contexts where science and theology must interact (organ donation, ectogenesis, etc.).
9. Allegation of oversimplification in examples (Einstein, triangle, tree)
Reviewer: “Examples are overly simplistic. And Einstein wasn’t eligible for a Biology Nobel...”
Response:
The examples are intended as pedagogical illustrations of al-Sanūsī’s rational categories—necessity, impossibility, and possibility—not as claims about historical plausibility or empirical likelihood.
The example of Einstein winning the Nobel Prize in Biology is used to illustrate a logically possible scenario, not a historically feasible or scientifically accurate one. Logical possibility operates within a modal conceptual framework—i.e., what is conceivable without contradiction—not what is constrained by disciplinary boundaries, actual historical events, or institutional rules.
That the reviewer treats this as a factual error suggests a misunderstanding of this key distinction. Al-Sanūsī’s framework—and rational theology more broadly—relies on precisely these modal distinctions to clarify how the mind categorizes reality. We’ve clarified this point in the revised manuscript to avoid potential confusion.
10. Concerns about missing page numbers or source accuracy
Reviewer: “Book references are thrown in without page numbers…”
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this point. We have added page numbers where applicable and clarified quotations. For example, references to King (1996) and Morrison (2013) have been refined to specify what is being cited and where it appears. We’ve also qualified generalized claims (e.g., about astronomy or bioethics) to reflect their scope and nuance.
