From Amipotence to All-Encompassing Mercy
By Adis Duderija
There are challenges and opportunities to integrating God’s amipotence into Islamic theology.
I completely agree with Oord’s critique of classical theistic omnipotence anchored in a monopolar view of God of classical theism and his alternative in the form of amipotence. In my essay, I aim to do two things. First, I examine the theological obstacles and resources in integrating the idea of amipotence into the Islamic interpretive tradition. Second, I looked closer at Oord’s definition of amipotence and raise some epistemological questions with an example from the Islamic tradition.
Obstacles to integrating amipotence into Islamic tradition
Like in mainstream Christian theology, the concept of God in Islamic orthodoxy is a byproduct of what Hartshorne has described as classical theology with its monopolar understanding of God. Moreover, Islamic orthodoxy in terms of its epistemological and ontological parameters pertaining to the attributes and nature of God operate within the confines of Divine Command Theory /Divine Command Ethics that prioritize the idea of God’s Sovereignty/Will, Omnipotence, and Transcendence that directly collide with and undermine the ontological primacy of Divine relational love as encapsulated in the concept of amipotence as put forward by Oord.
Islamic orthodoxy is also strongly invested in the idea that the Qur’an is the verbatim Word of God that has, metaphysically speaking, a meta-human quality to it. Moreover, in the Qur’an, God is sometimes described with a number of attributes that conflict with the idea of amipotence as advocated by Oord. These, for example, include Al-Malik Al-Mulk (Master/ Sovereign/Owner of all Sovereignty /Dominion), Al-’Aziz (Almighty), and Al-Jabbar ( All Powerful). These ideas leave no room for amipotence based theology. So, for as long as Islamic orthodoxy operates within the above-described framework, the idea of amipotence cannot be integrated into the Islamic tradition.
Opportunities for integrating amipotence into Islamic tradition
There are also grounds for integrating the idea of amipotence into the Islamic tradition. The first and most important condition is to bring the Qur’an back to the human epistemological plane and view it as a literary, socio-culturally produced religious discourse (or set of religious discourses) that emerged organically in the context of the complex religious milieu of late Antiquity Arabia. There are already a number of contemporary Muslim scholars who have developed such a view of the Qur’an as “revelation.” This would allow for the radical questioning of the classical theistic monopolar concept of God in Islamic theology/philosophy and allow for a reinterpretation of the omnipotence-related attributes of God mentioned above. For example, it could be argued that the abovementioned omnipotence-based attributes in the Qur’an serve a literary function of emphasizing God’s Majesty (jalal) rather than God’s Omnipotence.
The second important mechanism that can be used for integrating the idea of amipotence into the Islamic tradition is to capitalize on Qur’an’s frequent references philosophically and ontologically to God as the Most Merciful /Most Compassionate (Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim).
The Qur’an frequently uses the attribute of mercy to describe God, with the Arabic word “rahma.” Rahma is derived from the word “rahim,” associated with a mother’s womb, invoking the emotional and physical connotations of a mother’s love. Two terms, “ar-Rahman” (the All-Merciful) and “ar-Rahim” (the All-Compassionate), are employed in the Qur’an to express God’s mercy. While both terms convey the concept of mercy, they have distinct characteristics. “Ar-Rahim” is used in the Qur’an to emphasize God’s benevolence and forgiveness, particularly highlighting God’s compassionate love, such as in the context of forgiving Adam’s sin. Conversely, “ar-Rahman” signifies God’s unconditional love and intention to love people, reflecting the nurturing aspect of Her love. While compassion, like other attributes of God, is rationally defined, the notion of being “all-merciful” is absolute and lacks an opposing equivalent. Put differently, it is an inherent trait of God. Thus, the attribute “ar-Rahman” encompasses a broader scope than “ar-Rahim.”[1] In the words of Khorchide:
God reveals Himself to us through His mercy. By doing so, He shows He is interested in having a relationship with people; He issues an invitation. This makes Him approachable and allows us to experience Him, but we must freely choose to take up the offer. Love cannot exist without freedom.[2]
Importantly, moreover, the idea of God’s all-encompassing mercy and its conceptual primacy in the Qur’anic framework has additional strong scriptural support (Q 7:156)
Mercy, therefore, flows from the very nature and essence of God, defined by profound love and compassion. As the creator of all creation, God’s deepest motivation is unconditional love for it. Mercy is how that divine love expresses itself in this world through gracious forgiveness of mistakes and healing of imperfections. The fountainhead of mercy arises from the infinite wellspring of divine love. In essence, according to this approach to Islamic theology, mercy lies at the core of the divine character. It is one of the most exalted names of God, manifesting love and forgiveness toward creation from the boundless depths of the Creator’s care, compassion, and benevolence. In Islamic theology, God’s Mercy and God’s love are, therefore, intrinsically connected.
In Islamic mysticism, in particular, divine love is considered the highest form of love—a pure, unconditional love that seeks only the beloved’s good and feels no self-interest. This form of love is the very nature and essence of God. So, in Islamic mysticism, God’s eternal love for creation is the cause of divine mercy. Mercy flows from the wellspring of love to pardon faults and lead souls to their Beloved. Together, mercy and love show God’s utmost compassion for humanity. Therefore, God’s all-encompassing love and mercy are not two distinct attributes but rather two facets of the same Divine nature. Where there is divine love, there is mercy because mercy is the outward expression of inward love.
Given the above, we can argue that the concept of amipotence, providing the above conditions are met, can be integrated into the Islamic tradition under the premise of a God whose mercy is all-encompassing and therefore occupies conceptual primacy among all of God’s attributes.
On Definition of Amipotence
In this section, I want to raise some concerns about an aspect of the definition of amipotence tied to well-being and flourishing. Oord defines amipotence in the following manner:
We best define love in amipotence as acting intentionally, in relational response to God and others, to promote overall well-being. This definition applies to both divine and creaturely love. The love God and creatures express, in other words, acts with intention, relates with others, and aims to promote flourishing. And because love is inherently uncontrolling neither divine nor creaturely love controls. Love can’t be omnipotent (p.122).
Oord argues that while this concept and definition of love applies to God and humanity, the degree and nature of God’s love is infinitely greater. Divine love is universal in scope as only God’s presence spans all of creation since only God is omnipresent. God’s love also differs in duration as it exists eternally without beginning or end. The frequency of God’s love also differs as it is constant and unwavering since only God is everlasting. Additionally, God’s love, as defined by Oord, also differs in adequacy because, as the all-knowing one (omniscient in an open and relational sense of the word), God’s understanding of what truly promotes well-being is perfect and complete. With God’s omniscience comes a superior ability to love in a way that accounts for all factors affecting prosperity and fulfilment, both temporally and spiritually.
The true sense of God’s omnipotence, therefore, for Oord, relates to the immense influence and potency of the divine influence over all of creation. God’s power vastly surpasses any power that humans or other creatures possess. This is partly because an omnipresent God has the ability to affect all beings everywhere simultaneously. But the power of God’s love especially makes it supreme because divine love is relentless and enduring—it exists forever without cessation. God’s amipotent power is both active and receptive. It is empowering while also empathetic. The influence of amipotence wooingly draws beings near yet remains patient and uncontrolling in nature (p.122-123).
As noted above, while I find myself in complete agreement with Oord’s explanation and justification underpinning amipotence, I do think more needs to be said about the idea of the telos or purpose of amipotence being framed in terms of promotion of overall well-being and flourishing (of both God and creation). Here we face an impasse, namely, epistemologically speaking, how do we humans know when God is acting in an amipotent manner that promotes (human) well-being and (human) flourishing since often there can be reasonable disagreement whether a specific action, ethical injunction or law would or should be seen as contributing to overall creaturely well-being and flourishing. We know this much from the rich literature on human flourishing and well-being. Answering the question by maintaining that well-being and flourishing are in harmony with amipotence would be a circular argument. The continued competing versions of what constitutes goodness, well-being, and flourishing are rooted in the reality that there is often no consensus on what these concepts mean in practice in specific contexts because they depend upon broader faith or philosophical commitments of what constitutes good/ethical life. And isn’t this why we continue to have culture wars on issues such as abortion, just war, gun ownership, and the place of religion in public life or politics more generally?
Oord, as a process-relational theologian agrees that God’s actions in the world should be seen as an exemplification of ontological principles of existence as conceptualized in process metaphysics and that God acts at least in some but not in all ways acts like creatures (p.128-129). Furthermore, Oord maintains that the idea of God acting should be understood as a form of relating, experiencing, or loving as understood by humans. However, those who follow classical theistic theologies, which are based on Divine Command/Divine Ethics theory and reject a process-relational metaphysics, could and often do have very different ideas on what constitutes well-being/ flourishing compared to process-relational based worldviews or indeed those based on secular-materialistic ones.
Let me take an example from the Islamic tradition. In Islamic legal philosophy, there exists a legal concept named maslaha that is based on the idea that the purpose/ higher objective of Islamic legal theory (whose purpose is to discover Divine Will and shape Islamic society accordingly) is the promotion of social well-being/benefit (maslaha) and curtailment of social harm (mafsada). However, the idea of what constitutes maslaha/mafsada specifically in a particular context could be very different. In Islamic legal theory, these decisions are determined within the broader theological, epistemological, and hermeneutical parameters characterizing classical Islamic orthodoxy. Conservative clerics in many Muslim contexts have used the argument of promoting well-being (maslaha) to prevent women from driving cars and making independent decisions about their finances and future spouses. Women continue to be subjected to various additional types of patriarchal male guardianship laws, including imposition of mandatory head covering laws and tolerance of marital rape and female genital cutting. To a progressive Muslim such as myself, these practices are far from being considered constitutive of maslaha, yet they are justified as such in the eye of Islamic orthodoxy.
In conclusion, I welcome the idea of amipotence replacing that of the omnipotence of classical theism as conceptualized by Oord for the same reasons he discusses in his important book. I also see potential in integrating amipotence in the Islamic context in the form of ontological primacy of God’s attribute of Ar-Rahman/All-encompassing Mercy. I have reservations about the dimension of its definition pertaining to the promotion of overall well-being/flourishing since it does not solve the problem of competing conceptualizations of these terms and their concrete manifestations in human society.
Bio: Adis Duderija is a first-generation Bosnian-Australian. He obtained his Ph. D in 2010 at the Centre for Muslim States and Societies at the University of western Australia on interpretational methodologies of Qur’an and Sunna in Neo-Traditional Salafism and Progressive Islam. He is currently an academic at Griffith University in Brisbane Australia where he teaches courses on Islam and Gender, Islamic intellectual tradition and Islam and Muslims in the West. He is the author of nine books on various aspects of Islamic intellectual tradition and over 100 academic publications.
OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE
I am thrilled that Adis Duderija critiques classical omnipotence and explores amipotence through an Islamic lens. He acknowledges obstacles within the Islamic tradition but also sees opportunities, particularly in the Quran’s portrayal of God as compassionate and merciful. I learned much from his essay and am glad this rethinking of divine power resonates with a progressive Muslim like Adis. His work offers a valuable bridge between Islam and a more adequate theology of God’s love and power. I will closely follow his efforts as he integrates these ideas, fostering a deeper understanding of divine compassion and empowerment from a Muslim perspective.
For more on Michael Lodahl’s comparison of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, see this article.
* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.
[1]. See M. Khorchide. Islam is Mercy: Essential Features of a Modern Religion, Herder, 2014.
[2]. Ibid, p. 5