Modernist Objections in Ilāhiyyāt: A Critical Analysis

Author

Al-Azhar University

Abstract

This study explores a range of modernist objections to ilāhiyyāt—the theological inquiry into the Divine—focusing in particular on claims advanced by contemporary Western modernists who deny the existence and attributes of God. These objections revolve around three core allegations: that the Divine Name is semantically ambiguous, that belief in God lacks rational foundation, and that affirming His existence is a mark of intellectual immaturity. The aim of the study is to expose the flaws in these arguments and to demonstrate that they simply repackage earlier objections long addressed and answered within the classical and post-classical Islamic tradition. Far from offering new insights, modernist critiques are shown to lack both philosophical depth and epistemological originality.
The research draws on a combined methodology: inductive engagement with the sources and discourses of modernist thought, analytical unpacking of their arguments, and critical evaluation through both reason and revelation. The structure of the study includes an introduction followed by three chapters. The first sets out key concepts and clarifies the terminology used; the second examines objections to Divine existence; and the third addresses denials of God’s attributes. The conclusion summarizes key findings and offers recommendations.
Among the study’s central conclusions is that modernist objections, though framed in contemporary idiom, recycle familiar errors rather than contributing meaningful critique. Sound reasoning, when coupled with revealed truth, affirms both the necessity of belief in God and the coherence of His attributes as understood in Islamic thought. Moreover, the study highlights deep methodological and epistemological inconsistencies at the heart of the modernist stance.
In light of these findings, the study advocates for renewed emphasis on theological education, the intellectual protection of youth from atheistic-modernist currents, and a sharper distinction between legitimate methodological development and the ideological dismissal of revelation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics