The Technical Definition of Causality (al-Sababiyyah)

Causality refers to the relationship between the sabab (cause) and the musabbab (effect). This relationship is based on the influence of the cause upon its result. To properly understand this relationship, we must first understand the meaning and reality of sabab itself.

Scholars have differed in their technical definitions of sabab, each group defining it according to its own discipline: the Ahl al-Sunnah, the jurists (fuqaha), the scholars of usul (usuliyyun), and the philosophers. These differences arise from their distinct fields, principles, and sources.

Definition According to Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah

Ahl al-Sunnah, in their technical definition, do not depart from the Quran’s usage of the term. They derive their understanding directly from the meanings found in the Book of Allah and the salaf. They did not invent a separate meaning for the term; rather, they took the common underlying sense shared by all legitimate meanings and defined sabab accordingly.

Among their definitions are:

• Sabab: everything by which one reaches the intended goal.
  Al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) said: “The root meaning of sabab among the Arabs is everything by which one reaches the desired goal, such as a rope, a means, kinship, relationship, road, or path.” (Tafsir al-Tabari 23/130)
• Sabab: everything by which a person attains what he seeks or needs.
• Sabab: everything by which one attains what is sought.
  Ibn Zayd said: “Asbab is the plural of sabab, and it means everything by which a person seeks to achieve his purpose or need. The rope is called a sabab because one reaches what he needs by holding onto it. A path is a sabab because one reaches his destination by travelling it. Marriage is a sabab because it leads to kinship. A means (wasilah) is a sabab because it leads to one’s need. So everything by which a goal is reached is a sabab for it.” (Tafsir al-Tabari 2/72)
• Sabab: everything by which one reaches another thing. (Mukhtar al-Sihah 247; al-Jami‘ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an 11/33; Lisān al-Arab 1/458)

All these definitions are close in meaning and free of the logical conditions and restrictions imposed by philosophers. Their essence reflects the meaning mentioned in the Quran and the Arabic language, as recognised by the early imams of Arabic.

Ibn al-Qayyim also relied on these linguistic meanings of the Salaf and avoided the technical, philosophical terms of later scholars. (Shifa’ al-‘Alil 284)

This does not mean that all technical definitions are invalid.

Some are correct, others are false, and some mix truth with error.

Types of Causes According to Ahl al-Sunnah

Ahl al-Sunnah divide causes into two types:

1. Qadari causes (asbab qadiriyyah): These are causes established by Allah’s creational command, concerning the realm of creation and existence. They include all natural causal connections, such as fire’s burning, the sword’s cutting, and food’s satisfying hunger.
2. Shar‘i causes (asbab shar‘iyyah): These are causes established by Allah’s legislative command, concerning obligations and prohibitions. They include all commands and prohibitions, as they are causes legislated by the Sharia.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned this division in several places. He said: “Similar to those who deny the created causes in Allah’s creation are those who deny the legislated causes in Allah’s commands.” (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa 8/138)

In this text, he clarifies that causes are of two kinds: those decreed in creation and those legislated in commands, and that some sects denied one type as others denied the other.

He also said: “The created and legislated causes are both part of the decree (qadar). It was said to him: ‘Do you see the use of incantations (ruqa), seeking protection (ta‘awwudh), and medicine, do they repel Allah’s decree?’ He replied: ‘They are from Allah’s decree.’” (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa 8/528; Musnad Ahmad 3/421; Sunan al-Tirmidhi 4/249; Sunan Ibn Majah 2/1137)

Here Ibn Taymiyyah explains that both created and legislated causes are part of qadar. The Prophet mentioned medicine (a created cause) and ruqyah (a legislated cause), thus affirming both types.

Definition According to the Scholars of Usul (Usuliyyun)

The scholars of usul define sabab in the context of legal rulings as:
“That whose existence necessitates the existence of something else, and whose absence necessitates its absence, by its own nature.” (Sharh Taqrir al-Fusul 81; Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 1/445; Tahdhib Ibn Mudar 160)

Their saying “its existence necessitates existence” excludes the condition (shart), because a condition’s existence does not necessarily entail the existence of that which is conditional upon it.
Their saying “its absence necessitates absence” excludes the preventing factor (mani‘), because the absence of a preventive factor does not necessitate existence or non-existence.
Their saying “by its own nature” excludes cases where a cause exists but a condition is absent or a preventive factor is present.

For example, a nisab (minimum wealth amount) is a cause for zakah, but only if a lunar year passes over it. If the year has not passed, zakah is not due, not because the cause is invalid, but because the condition is missing. (Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 1/211)

Some usuliyyun among the philosophers defined sabab differently:

• “That at which a thing occurs, not by it.” (Ta‘rifat al-Jurjani 121)
• “Every apparent and defined quality upon which a text indicates that it is the sign of a legal ruling.” (Ahkam al-Ahkam al-Amidi 1/127)
• “That which is a way to reach a ruling, without having influence upon it.” (Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun 2/129)

These definitions are built upon the philosophical position of the Ash‘aris who denied causal efficacy. This is explicit in the first definition, which says that something occurs “at” the cause but not “by” it.

The second also implies the same by describing the cause as merely indicative of the ruling without effect.

The third definition explicitly denies causal influence. Further discussion on this will follow when addressing the Ash‘ari view of causality and Ibn Taymiyyah’s refutation of it.

Definition According to the Jurists (Fuqaha)

In fiqh terminology, sabab has several uses:

1. It refers to what is opposed to direct action. For example, if one digs a pit and another person pushes someone into it and he dies, the digger is the mutasabbib (indirect cause) while the one who pushed is the mubashir (direct actor). They say: if direct action and indirect cause combine, the direct actor takes precedence and bears liability. (al-Mustasfa 1/209; Rawdat al-Nadhir 1/246; Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 1/448)
2. It refers to the cause of the cause, such as throwing a stone that kills a person. The direct cause of death is the strike of the stone, and the throwing is the cause of that cause. (Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 1/449)
3. It refers to the incomplete cause, like owning a nisab without the completion of a year, which is the condition.
4. It also refers to the complete legal cause, composed of the reason, its condition, and a valid recipient.

Definition According to the Philosophers

The philosophers define sabab as: “That upon which a thing depends, either in its essence or in its existence.” It is synonymous with illah (cause).

They divide it into four categories:

Material cause: That which is part of the thing itself and exists with it in potential, such as the marble block for a statue, which they call the material cause.

Formal cause: That which is part of the thing itself and exists with it in actuality, such as the shape or form of the statue.

Efficient cause: That which produces the existence of a thing yet is not part of it, like the craftsman who shapes the statue.

Final cause: That for the sake of which the act occurs, meaning the purpose or end for which something is done. (Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun 2/128)

They also divide the sabab in terms of its effectiveness in producing the musabbab (effect) into two kinds:

Necessary cause: When the cause leads to its effect consistently or in most cases.

Accidental cause: When the cause leads to its effect only rarely or by coincidence, and not in a consistent pattern. (Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun 2/128)

Thus, according to the philosophers, a sabab is anything upon which the existence or formation of something else depends, whether by its matter, its form, its agent, or its intended purpose.

The Technical Definition of ‘Illah (Cause)

People have used the term ‘illah with different technical meanings, depending on their field of knowledge. The hadith scholars have one definition, the jurists and scholars of usul have another, and the philosophers have theirs.

Definition According to the Hadith Scholars

The hadith scholars define ‘illah as: “A subtle, hidden cause that enters a hadith and affects its authenticity while it appears outwardly sound.” (Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun 2/1038)

In the terminology of the hadith scholars, it has several meanings:

The first and most common meaning: It refers to hidden and subtle causes that occur in a hadith which undermine its authenticity even though it appears outwardly sound, and these causes are not related to the criticism of a narrator’s reliability (jarh, meaning criticism of a narrator’s trustworthiness).

The second meaning: They are the causes by which a hadith becomes weak due to the jarh (criticism) of the narrator, such as lying, negligence, poor memory, or other defects that harm reliability. In such a case, they say: “This hadith is mu’allal (defective) because of so-and-so.”

The third meaning, according to al-Khalil ibn Abdullah al-Khalili: It is also used to refer to the presence of a cause that does not necessarily affect the authenticity of the hadith, such as when a trustworthy and precise narrator connects a chain while another narrator sends it as mursal. (‘Ilal ad-Daraqutni 1/37, introduction of the editor)

Definition According to the Jurists and Scholars of Usul

The jurists (fuqaha) and scholars of usul (usuliyyun) use the term ‘illah in several ways:

1. That which necessarily requires the ruling, and this is the complete compound of the cause, including the factor (muqtadi), the condition (shart), the subject (mahal), and the qualification of responsibility (ahliyyah).
2. That which leads to the ruling, even if the ruling is absent due to the absence of a condition or the presence of a preventive factor (mani‘).

This meaning is the most common among jurists, and Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH) preferred it. (Rawdat an-Nadhir 1/245–246)

They also use ‘illah to mean “the wisdom” (hikmah), as in their saying: “The traveller is allowed concessions due to the cause of hardship.” (al-Bahr al-Muhit by az-Zarkashi 5/110; at-Tawqif by al-Mu‘dawi 522)

And they also use it to mean “the indicator” (mu‘arrif), that which makes the ruling known.

The last meaning carries a philosophical and Ash‘ari tone, because it denies the influence of the ‘illah itself and makes it merely a sign or indicator of the ruling, not an effective cause.

Definition According to the Philosophers

The philosophers define ‘illah (cause) as: “That upon which a thing depends, either in its essence or in its existence.” (al-Mabahith al-Mashriqiyyah by Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi 1/586)

The Greek philosophers, and those among the Muslims who followed them, divide the ‘illah into four kinds:

1. Formal cause (al-‘illah as-suriya): It is the part of a thing by which the thing must exist when it is present. It refers to the essence and form of the thing and the totality of the characteristics that complete it, such as the shape of a statue and the structure it takes. (al-Mabahith al-Mashriqiyyah 1/586)
2. Material cause (al-‘illah al-madiyya): It is the part that does not necessitate the thing’s existence but makes it possible. It refers to the matter from which the thing is made, such as the marble stone being the material cause of the statue. (al-Mabahith al-Mashriqiyyah 1/586; History of Greek Philosophy by Dr Muhammad Abd ar-Rahman Marhaba 275)
3. Efficient cause (al-‘illah al-fa‘iliyya): It is that which brings another thing into existence, the agent that acts upon it to produce it. (al-Mabahith al-Mashriqiyyah 1/586)
4. Final cause (al-‘illah al-gha’iyya): It is that for the sake of which something exists, the goal or purpose for which an act is done. (al-Mabahith al-Mashriqiyyah 1/586; Mi‘yar al-‘Ilm fi al-Mantiq by al-Ghazali 189; al-Mu‘jam al-Falsafi by Jamil Saliba 2/96)

The scholars have spoken much about the difference between the illa (effect) and the sabab (cause).

Most of them did not distinguish between them.

Some did, but those differences are unclear or based on the theological opinions of the mutakallimeen (philosophers).

To clarify the issue, it can be said:

First, linguistically, there is no doubt that there is a difference between the sabab (cause) and the illa (effect).

Each has its own meaning in the Arabic language. A detailed discussion has already been given about the word sabab (cause), what it is used for in Arabic, and about the word illa (effect) and its meaning in Arabic. From this, it appears that the definition of one does not apply to the other.

However, it should be noticed that the Arabs did not restrict the word sabab (cause) to the specific examples mentioned earlier. Rather, everything that fits the shared core meaning of sabab (cause) falls under its category.

This explains the wide usage of the word sabab (cause). Based on this, the illa (effect) can be included in the scope of sabab (cause) whenever the shared meaning applies to it. In this way, the intended point is reached.

Some grammarians differentiated between the sabab (cause) and the illa (effective cause).

Ibn Malik mentioned the bā’ of sababiyyah (bā’ of causation) and the bā’ of ta‘lil (bā’ of explanation) and differentiated between them, saying that the bā’ of taqlil (bā’ of reduction) is the one for which it is proper that the lām can take its place, as in the verse: “Indeed, you have wronged yourselves by taking the calf” (al-Baqara 54), meaning (by your taking the calf).

The bā’ of sababiyyah (bā’ of causation) is that which enters upon something that can stand as a substitute for the doer, as when one says “I wrote with the pen”, for it is figuratively correct to say “the pen wrote”

The grammarians refer to this bā’ as the bā’ of isti‘anah (assistance), but the reason for calling it bā’ of sababiyyah (causation) is due to its use in actions attributed to Allah, for using isti‘anah (assistance) with them is not allowed, whereas using sababiyyah (causation) is allowed (Sharh at-Tashil By Ibn Malik (3/150).

Technically every science has its own terms as defined by its scholars and specialists. It is a mistake to mix these terminologies without clarifying what each group means by them.

In fact, one of the reasons that led the mutakallimeen to division, disagreement, and dispute was the confusion of terminologies.

For this reason, Shaykh al-Islam when discussing any newly introduced term, would ask for clarification of its meaning. He would not stop at its linguistic sense but would thoroughly investigate what the speaker meant by it, then judge both the word and its intended meaning.

For example, the word jism (body), though clear and apparent in meaning, some people gave it a specific definition. Therefore, Shaykh al-Islam would neither affirm nor negate that Allah is a jism (body) until clarification was made. If by it a correct meaning was intended, it was acceptable in meaning but not in usage since it is not found in the Quran or Sunnah. But if by it a false meaning was intended, it was rejected both in word and meaning

There are some terminologies that lead to disagreement and dispute, but upon detailed study of certain scientific issues, it becomes clear that some of these differences are merely linguistic.

The point is that multiple terminologies for a single term have caused much confusion, especially in matters of creed, leading many people astray.

The issue of the illa (effective cause) and the sabab (cause) falls into this category. We have seen that scholars have many technical definitions for each of them. Hence, I will examine the difference between illa (effective cause) and sabab (cause) according to each group separately.

The Quran and the Sunnah should not be interpreted using technical terms that were invented after the salaf.

The original texts must be understood according to the intended meaning of the speaker, not according to the definitions of a later group. Therefore, the terminologies that have been mentioned or will be mentioned should not be applied to the Quran and Sunnah unless there is a valid proof.