ArticlePDF Available

Evil and Human Suffering in Islamic Thought—Towards a Mystical Theodicy

February 2018
Religions 9(2):47

DOI:10.3390/rel9020047

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

This paper sheds light on the treatment of the ‘problem of evil’ and human suffering from an Islamic perspective. I begin by providing an overview of the term ‘evil’ in the Qur’an to highlight its multidimensional meaning and to demonstrate the overall portrait of this notion as it is presented in the Islamic revelation through the narrative of the prophet Job. Having established a Qur’anic framework, I will then provide a brief historical overview of the formation of philosophical and theological debates surrounding “good” and “bad/evil” and the origination of Muslim theodicean thought. This will lead us to Ghazālian theodicy and the famous dictum of the “best of all possible worlds” by one of the most influential scholars of Islamic thought, Abu Ḥāmid Ghazālī. The final section of this paper will explore the Sufi/ mystical tradition of Islam through the teachings of one of the most distinguished mystics of Islam, Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī. The conclusion of the paper will attempt to bring about a new understanding of how the so-called “problem of evil” is not presented in Islam as a problem but rather as an instrument in the actualization of God’s plan, which is intertwined with human experiences in this world-an experience that is necessary for man’s spiritual development.

Available via license: CC BY 4.0

Content may be subject to copyright.

religions

Article

Evil and Human Suffering in Islamic

Thought—Towards a Mystical Theodicy

Nasrin Rouzati

Religious Studies Department, Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY 10471, USA; nasrin.rouzati@manhattan.edu

Received: 13 December 2017; Accepted: 28 January 2018; Published: 3 February 2018

Abstract:

This paper sheds light on the treatment of the ‘problem of evil’ and human suffering from

an Islamic perspective. I begin by providing an overview of the term ‘evil’ in the Qur’an to highlight

its multidimensional meaning and to demonstrate the overall portrait of this notion as it is presented

in the Islamic revelation through the narrative of the prophet Job. Having established a Qur ’anic

framework, I will then provide a brief historical overview of the formation of philosophical and

theological debates surrounding “good” and “bad/evil” and the origination of Muslim theodicean

thought. This will lead us to Ghaz

alian theodicy and the famous dictum of the “best of all possible

worlds” by one of the most inﬂuential scholars of Islamic thought, Abu

.¯

amid Ghaz

ı. The ﬁnal

section of this paper will explore the Suﬁ/ mystical tradition of Islam through the teachings of one of

the most distinguished mystics of Islam, Jal

al al-D

ın R

ı. The conclusion of the paper will attempt

to bring about a new understanding of how the so-called “problem of evil” is not presented in Islam

as a problem but rather as an instrument in the actualization of God’s plan, which is intertwined with

human experiences in this world—an experience that is necessary for man’s spiritual development.

Keywords: problem of evil; theodicy; Qur’an; Job; good; evil; al Ghaz ¯

al¯

ı; mysticism; Islam

1. Introduction

The ‘problem of evil’ or, as it is more often referred to, the cause of human suffering is perhaps

one of the most debated questions in the history of the philosophy of religion.

Although the issue

makes itself known to humankind in general, it gains particular attention in the context of monotheistic

religions as it brings into question the main pillar of such religions, namely, the existence of a powerful

and merciful God. In light of the enormous amount of evil in the world, especially in the case of

undeserved suffering, the challenge becomes even more acute and begs for answers. According to

Hick, pondering about the volume of afﬂictions and adversities that mankind is faced with, “we do

indeed have to ask ourselves whether it is possible to think of this world as the work of an omnipotent

creator who is motivated by limitless love

. . .

this is indeed the most serious challenge that there is to

theistic faith.”2

This paper aims to shed light on the treatment of the ‘problem of evil’ and human suffering

from an Islamic perspective. I will begin by providing an overview of the term ‘evil’ in the Qur’an to

highlight its multidimensional meaning and attempt to demonstrate the overall portrait of this notion

as it is presented in the Islamic revelation through the narrative of the prophet Job. Having established

a Qur’anic framework, I will then provide a brief historical overview of the formation of theological

The “Problem of Evil”, in the context of Western scholarship, is generally identiﬁed in two main categories: theoretical

and existential, and further divides the theoretical dimension into logical and evidential; the distinction between moral evil

and natural evil is also underscored. For more on this see Michael L. Peterson, The Problem of Evil, Selected Readings

(Peterson 2011

), Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Plantinga 1974), and John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (Hick 2007).

2See John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion (Hick 2004, p. 118).

Religions 2018,9, 47; doi:10.3390/rel9020047 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions

Religions 2018,9, 47 2 of 13

debates surrounding “good” and “bad/evil” and the origination of Muslim theodicean thought.

This will lead us to Ghaz

alian theodicy and the famous dictum of the “best of all possible worlds” by one

of the most inﬂuential scholars of Islamic thought, Abu

.¯

amid Ghaz

ı. The ﬁnal section of this paper

will explore the Suﬁ/mystical tradition of Islam through the teachings of one of the most distinguished

mystics of Islam, Jal

al al-D

ın R

ı. The conclusion of the paper will attempt to bring about a new

understanding of how the so-called “problem of evil” is not presented in Islam as a problem but rather

as an instrument in the actualization of God’s plan, which is intertwined with human experiences in

this world—an experience that is necessary for man’s spiritual development.

2. Evil and Suffering in the Qur’an: An Overview

For more than fourteen hundred years the Qur’an has served as the foundation of the religion

of Islam and continues to play a dynamic role in shaping and inﬂuencing the lives of its followers,

regardless of their diverse cultural backgrounds. The Qur’an is also considered to be the highest

source of Islamic scholarship and functions as the starting point for a major portion of scholarly works.

Therefore, to understand the treatment of evil and suffering in Muslim thought, the journey must

begin with studying the Qur’anic narratives where this concept makes itself known.

A cursory review of studies on theodicy reveals that the meaning of ‘evil’, for the most part, is

assumed and is not negotiable—personal loss, illness, violence, natural disaster, etc. Although the term

appears abundantly in both popular and scholarly works, there seems to be a conceptual ambiguity

surrounding it: What exactly is evil? Furthermore, does human understanding of evil concur with the

divine message?

A key term in Arabic that is translated as evil is ‘sharr’ and it is presented in two distinct categories

of Qur’anic narratives. The ﬁrst category includes verses that fall in the semantic ﬁeld of sharr and

appears amongst the moral concepts of the Qur’an. The overall notion of good (khayr) and bad/evil

(sharr) is a central theme in Qur’anic teachings and is emphasized in both Meccan and Medinan phases

of the Islamic revelation.3Considering these narratives hermeneutically by applying an intra-textual

contextualization method, whereby the Qur’an functions as its own interpreter,

seems to suggest

that the most prominent meaning for the term sharr in this group of narratives is the situation that

man creates for himself.

It is clearly stated in the Qur’an that when humankind, through his own

volition, acts in certain ways and adapts to speciﬁc behaviors that are not in accordance with the

divine plan, he situates himself in a condition that is referred to as sharr by the Qur’an. Some of

the deeds that fall into this moral category include miserliness, unbelief/rejecting God, slander, and

transgression.

The Qur’an noticeably upholds that the creation of the universe—and by extension,

humankind—is purposeful and not in vain.

Man, therefore, must make a serious effort to live his life

according to God’s cosmic plan. By neglecting the purpose for his creation and the accountabilities

that it entails, he creates an undesirable living condition for himself, that is, sharr. The purposefulness

of man’s creation and his responsibility as it pertains to suffering will be discussed later in the article.

The second category of Qur’anic narratives is more of an interest to us as it is directly related to

human suffering and theodicy. This group of verses falls beyond the semantic ﬁeld of sharr and is

For information on the chronology of the Qur’an, see Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a

Veiled Text (Robinson 2003).

Intra-textual contextualization is a methodology used in understanding Qur’anic verses according to the context in which

they appear individually, as well as in relation to the overall theme of all the chapters in which they appear. For an

excellent discussion on the interpretation of the Qur’anic terms, see Toshibiko Izutsu, Ethico - Religious Concepts in the Qur’an

(Izutsu 2002).

5For example, see Qur’an, 3:180; 8:22; 24:11; 17:11. For an excellent exegesis on the Qur’an, see (Tabarsi 1350).

For more information on various contexts of sharr in the Qur’an, see Tunbar Yesilhark Ozkan, A Muslim Response to Evil. Said

Nursi on Theodicy (Ozkan 2015, pp. 19–35).

7Qur’an, 38:27

Religions 2018,9, 47 3 of 13

revealed in various historical contexts reﬂected in the Qur’an.

A careful scrutiny of these narratives

demonstrates that the so-called problem of evil—and by extension, human suffering—is not treated in

the Qur’an as a theoretical problem but rather as an instrument in the actualization of God’s purpose.

Most of these narratives illustrate that the underlying rationale for the existence of various forms of

evil and suffering is that they serve as a trial (ibtil

a) and test: “We shall certainly test you with fear and

hunger, and loss of property, lives, and crops; however, [Prophet], give good news to those who are steadfast.”

The purpose of human suffering and its role in God’s overall cosmic plan may bring about

two corollaries. First, there is no contradiction between the divine attributes of God and the fact

that suffering exists; therefore, afﬁrmation of the Qur’an regarding God’s omnipotence is not under

question: “Say ‘God, holder of all sovereignty, You give control to whoever You will, and remove it from whoever

You will. You elevate whoever You will and humble whoever You will. All that is good lies in Your hands: You

have power over everything.”

Moreover, since God is undoubtedly in control of creation, suffering must

also be allowed by him for God’s plan to be fully executed. Second, if suffering is meant as a test and

is regarded as a necessary component of life, then a Muslim must view the undesirable situations

(illness, ﬁnancial difﬁculty, loss of a loved one, etc.) as an opportunity to actualize his inner potential

and move forward in his spiritual journey, becoming who he “is” as the fruit of the creational tree.

It may also be concluded that by presenting the notion of evil and suffering as part of the human

experience and a necessary component of man’s spiritual journey, the Qur’an refrains from articulating

a systematic theodicy. Therefore, the objective is not to engage man in abstract ideas but rather to

help him realize the purpose of suffering and offer guiding principles in how to overcome various

forms of evil.

Here it may be noted that the notion of ‘natural evil’—a distinct category under the

umbrella of the ‘problem of evil’—is not treated in the Qur’an. Although the Qur’an frequently makes

references to nature and events in the natural world that might not be desirable by mankind, these are

not referred to as ‘evil’.

3. Overcoming Evil: Prophet Job (Ayy¯

ub)—The Exemplar

The notion of prophethood (n

uwwa) and the descriptive narratives about the lives of the

prophets constitute a major portion of the Islamic scripture. While the prophets serve as the conduits

through which the divine message is communicated to addressee communities, they are portrayed

as exemplars that inspire and guide people to the straight path of monotheism. The history of

Qur’anic prophethood began with Adam, chosen to become the ﬁrst prophet after the trial of eating

from the forbidden tree, and includes many of the ﬁgures mentioned in Judaeo–Christian traditions.

Although Islamic tradition speaks of 124,000 prophets in the history of mankind, the Qur’an mentions

twenty-ﬁve by name and describes their challenges as they conveyed the prophetic message to their

respected communities. Prophet Muhammad is mentioned as the ﬁnal messenger and is referred to as

the “Seal of the Prophets”.12

The story of Job (Ayy

ub), an eminent ﬁgure in Jewish and Christian tradition, is seen in the Qur’an

to exemplify genuine devotion to God, gratitude through fortune and health, and patience when

afﬂicted with illness and adversity.

Job’s incomparable sincerity and submission to God’s will in both

Discussing the historical, political, and social climate of Islam’s normative period is beyond the scope of this paper; however,

it needs to be noted that a large portion of the Qur’an is directly related to the circumstances that surrounded Prophet

Muhammad and the early Muslim community.

9Qur’an, 2:155. Also see 67:2 and 89:16.

10 Qur’an, 3:26, see (Abdel Haleem 2004).

For an extended discussion on the instrumentality of evil in the forms of bal

asee, Nasrin Rouzati, Trial and Tribulation in the

Qur’an: A Mystical Theodicy (Rouzati 2015).

12 Qur’an, 33:40.

The story of Job in Judeo-Christian traditions is presented in the Book of Job and appears in the form of a dialogue between

Job and his friends who try to explain to him the reason for his sufferings. A comparative study of the story between

Judeo-Christian tradition and Islam is beyond the scope of this paper. For an excellent comparative review, see A.H. Johns,

A Comparative Glance at Ayyub in the Qur’an (Johns 2008, pp. 51–82).

Religions 2018,9, 47 4 of 13

health and prosperity, as well as during afﬂiction and hardship, are the reasons the Qur’an portrays

him as “an excellent servant.”14

According to Muslim exegesis, what distinguishes Job is the fact that despite his enormous fortune,

he continually attributed the source of his blessings to God and remained humble as a servant who

lacked ownership of his belongings. Similarly, when God tested him with a serious disease, he exercised

patience and recognized that he was going through a test—a positive experience—and ascribed any

negative feelings of despair to Satan.15

The Qur’anic narrative about Job demonstrates that trials and tests—whether in prosperity and

health or illness and hardship—are part of the divine plan, so much so that even prophets are not

exempt; it is through various experiences in life that man is able to actualize his potential and propagate

his mission on this earth. As John notes, “the story of Job in the Qur ’an is understood primarily as a

reward narrative with an emphasis different from that of the story of Job in the Bible.”16

4. Concept of Evil: Theological and Philosophical Development

One of the earliest problems in Muslim theological thought (kal

am) was how to reconcile the

divine attribute of omnipotence with the notion of human free will. The departure point for this

discourse was the Qur’an and the diverse interpretations of its teachings on the divine names and

attributes (asm

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

when afflicted with illness and adversity.13 Job’s incomparable sincerity and submission to God’s

will in both health and prosperity, as well as during affliction and hardship, are the reasons the

Qur’an portrays him as “an excellent servant.”14

According to Muslim exegesis, what distinguishes Job is the fact that despite his enormous

fortune, he continually attributed the source of his blessings to God and remained humble as a

servant who lacked ownership of his belongings. Similarly, when God tested him with a serious

disease, he exercised patience and recognized that he was going through a test—a positive

experience—and ascribed any negative feelings of despair to Satan.15

The Qur’anic narrative about Job demonstrates that trials and tests—whether in prosperity and

health or illness and hardship—are part of the divine plan, so much so that even prophets are not

exempt; it is through various experiences in life that man is able to actualize his potential and

propagate his mission on this earth. As John notes, “the story of Job in the Qur’an is understood

primarily as a reward narrative with an emphasis different from that of the story of Job in the Bible.”16

4. Concept of Evil: Theological and Philosophical Development

One of the earliest problems in Muslim theological thought (kalām) was how to reconcile the

divine attribute of omnipotence with the notion of human free will. The departure point for this

discourse was the Qur’an and the diverse interpretations of its teachings on the divine names and

attributes (asmāʾ al-ḥusnā).17 The reconciliation of certain divine attributes, predominantly the aspect

of an all-powerful God, with the idea of human free will—the broader frame with which human

suffering was enclosed—was the first attempt to initiate a theodicy within the context of Islam.

The discourse presents itself at the core of the theological dialogue amongst various groups. The

theologians who advocated for the attribute of omnipotence in its absolute and uncompromising

form were of the opinion that the only agent in this world is God: He creates His own acts as well as

the acts of all human beings. As this view raised serious concerns about the creation of “evil” acts by

God, the debate developed further to question the validity of human free will—the concept that is

deeply rooted in the Quran as it relates to man’s responsibility and accountability, as well as divine

judgment and reward and punishment. The dialogue crystallized between the Muʿtazilite and the

Ashʿarite, the two main schools of thought, with a divergence of opinion; both made a serious effort

to win the argument according to their understanding of the Qur’an.18

The Muʿtazilite school of thought, also known as the rationalists, categorically opposed the idea

that God creates human acts that include evil and advocated for human free will by emphasizing the

importance of the divine attribute of justice (ʿadl). They upheld that God, in accordance with His

attribute of (ʿāadil), cannot create evil and that evil is the direct result of man’s freedom of choice. This

view was challenged by raising questions such as: If God does not create evil, who, then, is

responsible for human suffering caused by illnesses and disasters? And if God wills for illnesses and

disasters in human life, how can He be just? The Muʿtazilites responded by affirming that illnesses

and disasters, while may appear as “evil”, are in actuality “good” that God creates and that serve a

significant purpose in the creational cosmic plan. This seems to be the first appearance of the theory

13 The story of Job in Judeo₋Christian traditions is presented in the Book of Job and appears in the form of a

dialogue between Job and his friends who try to explain to him the reason for his sufferings. A comparative

study of the story between Judeo₋Christian tradition and Islam is beyond the scope of this paper. For an

excellent comparative review, see A.H. Johns, A Comparative Glance at Ayyub in the Qur'an (Johns 2008,

pp. 51–82).

14 Qur’an 38:41–2 and 21:83–4.

15 See Abubakr `Tigh Neishabur Surabadi, Tafsir Surabadi, ed. Sa`Idi Sirjani (Surabadi 1381). Also, see Brannon

M. Wheeler, Prophets in the Qur'an, an Introduction to the Qur'an and Muslim Exegesis (Wheeler 2002).

16 See (Johns 2003, pp. 50–51).

17 For more on this see Abdol Rahman Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldūn (Ibn Khaldūn 1375).

18 For a comprehensive discussion on development of theology in Islam, see Harry Austryn Wolfson, The

Philosopy of Kalam (Wolfson 1976).

al-

usn

a).

The reconciliation of certain divine attributes, predominantly the aspect of

an all-powerful God, with the idea of human free will—the broader frame with which human suffering

was enclosed—was the ﬁrst attempt to initiate a theodicy within the context of Islam.

The discourse presents itself at the core of the theological dialogue amongst various groups.

The theologians who advocated for the attribute of omnipotence in its absolute and uncompromising

form were of the opinion that the only agent in this world is God: He creates His own acts as well as

the acts of all human beings. As this view raised serious concerns about the creation of “evil” acts by

God, the debate developed further to question the validity of human free will—the concept that is

deeply rooted in the Quran as it relates to man’s responsibility and accountability, as well as divine

judgment and reward and punishment. The dialogue crystallized between the Mu

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

of instrumentality of human suffering in the divine plan. The notion of suffering, which included

undeserved suffering by children and animals, continued to be discussed by the Muʿtazilite

theologians.19 The Muʿtazilite’s firm stress on God’s justice, however, resulted in the group dividing,

which finally gave birth to the Ashʾarite school of thought.

According to Ashʾarite theologians, God’s law of justice applies only to human beings who have

been obligated to act according to His laws. Applying the idea of justice to God, however, will put a

limit on an all-powerful creator; therefore, God is not bound by His own laws. He is just in whatever

He does. 20 Applied to suffering, this then means that all harm encountered by man is fair as it has

been willed by God who is just in all His creation. The Ashʾarite thinkers were in sharp conflict with

the Muʿtazilites who asserted that not only is God subjected to the same rules of justice but that, in

fact, the obligation to act in just means is eternal and uncompromising for God. It is worth noting that

a prominent Muslim philosopher, Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 1198), challenged these views and asserted

that the element of justice may not be employed for God and man in the same manner: man, by virtue

of being just, advances to a higher level of goodness; God, however, is just due to His perfection—a

trait that requires Him to be just.21

In the final analysis, mainstream Sunnite theologians supported the Ashʾarite school of thought

and emphasized that God creates all acts. In order to reconcile God’s omnipotence with human

responsibility, the doctrine of acquisition (kasb) was adopted: God creates all acts; humans freely

acquire certain acts and, therefore, are accountable for the acquisition of good and evil acts. 22

Conversely, Muslim thinkers belonging to the Shiʾite branch of Islam—through the influence of

rational element in the Muʿtazilite theology—remained in disagreement with the Ashʿarites. An

example of this may be observed from the writings of an eminent Persian philosopher, Morteza

Muṭahharī (d. 1979), who was of the opinion that the Ashʾarite outlook, while aimed at vindicating

God from injustice, resulted in exonerating human oppressors of any wrongdoing.23

From the Muslim philosophical perspective, the notion of good and evil is enclosed within the

wider ontological understanding of existence (wujūd) and nonexistence (ʿadam). Briefly put, good is

defined as a positive entity that branches from existence; evil, on the other hand, stems from

nonexistence and as such is viewed as a negative entity. 24 An example of the ontological

interpretation of what constitutes good and evil may be seen from the works of two prominent

Muslim philosophers who significantly influenced the shaping of Muslim philosophical thought: Ibn

Sīnā, known as Avicenna (d. 1037), and Sadr al-Din Shirāzī, who was mostly recognized as Mullā

Sadrā (d. 1636).

Ibn Sīnā formed a theodicy by distinguishing the various forms of evil such as “essential” evil

(sharr bidh-dhāt), which is non-being or privation, and “accidental” evil (sharr bil-ʿaraḍ), which can be

either being or privation. In his analysis, Ibn Sīnā concluded that it is the non-essential/accidental evil

that is the leading cause of human suffering and that the total amount of good in the universe

outweighs the amount of evil. 25 Mullā Sadrā, on the other hand, extensively developed this

philosophical approach by an interest in combining theology with mystical insight. This approach,

according to Rizvi, totally transformed the theory of existence as it pertains to Islamic metaphysics.26

19 For a great discussion on the Muʿtazilite’s view on pain and suffering see (Heemskerk 2000). For an extensive

study on the notion of disability in Islam, see Mohammed Ghaly, Islam and Disability: Perspectives in Theology

and Jurisprudence (Ghaly 2010).

20 See Wolfson, The Philosopy of Kalam (Wolfson 1976).

21 For more on his philosophy, see Ibn Rushd (Averroes), The Philosophy and Theology of Averroes, (Averroes

1921).

22 For more on theory of acquisition, see Wolfson, The Philosopy of Kalam (Wolfson 1976).

23 See (Mutahhari 1385, pp. 50–51).

24 For more on ontological aspects of good and evil, see Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin

to the Present (Nasr 2006, pp. 65–68).

25 For more on Ibn Sīnā’s theodicy, see Shams C. Inati, The Problem of Evil: Ibn Sina's Theodicy (Inati 2000).

26 See Sajjad Rizvi, 'Mulla Sadra', Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Rizvi 2009).

tazilite and the

Ash