Philosophy of Creation: Humanity Between the Completion of Perception and the Alteration of Creation

Philosophy Is Not a Bogeyman

If philosophy has long been presented in some religious discourses as something frightening, or as a path to doubt and unbelief, the question that ought to precede this judgment is: what is philosophy in the first place?

In this study, I do not begin with the definitions fashioned by philosophical schools, nor with the image of philosophy drawn by some religious figures. Rather, I return to the human being before there were schools, names, and doctrines.

For the human being was placed before a creation that was not of their own making:

Sky, earth, sun, moon, stars, water, plants, animals, the self, death, and life.

From here, questioning began.

Thus, the definition I propose for philosophy is:

Philosophy is the human journey toward understanding one's existence within creation; it begins with questioning, proceeds through perception, examination, reflection, reasoning, Tadbur, and the pursuit of proof, and seeks knowledge, truth, choice, responsibility, and purpose.

In this sense, philosophy is not a “bogeyman” with which a religious figure frightens people, nor is it synonymous with unbelief or an adversary of faith.

Philosophy is the human act of questioning one's existence and understanding one's place within creation.

Those who possess the right to question do not necessarily lose their faith; questioning itself may instead be the path by which a person tests what they believe.

Thus, the problem is not that a person asks questions.

The problem begins when they are told:

Do not ask.

Or:

Ask, but do not go beyond the conclusion predetermined for you.

Here begins our engagement with the subject of this study.

From the Philosophy of Questioning to the Philosophy of Creation

If human beings come to know their existence through their relationship with creation, then knowledge does not begin with books alone.

It begins with perception:

The senses → perception → questioning → examination → reflection → reasoning → Tadbur → proof → knowledge.

Knowledge then becomes:

Choice → responsibility → purpose.

This is the essence of the “philosophy of creation” that I propose here as a hypothesis open to inquiry and discussion.

The human being is not merely an existent within creation, but a being who knows within creation, asks about it, reflects upon it, adopts a position toward it, and then bears the consequences of their choices.

From here, philosophy draws closer to the very essence of the human being.

The Integration of Perception

The Qur'an does not present the human being as an intellect detached from the rest of their faculties.

God says:

﴿وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ﴾ (And He gave you hearing, sight, and hearts, so that you might give thanks.) []

And it says:

﴿وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ ۚ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْؤُولًا﴾ (And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, hearing, sight, and the heart—one will be questioned about all of these.) []

It then makes the heart a locus of understanding and reasoning:

﴿لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا﴾ (They have hearts with which they do not understand.) []

And it says:

﴿فَتَكُونَ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ يَعْقِلُونَ بِهَا﴾ (So that they might have hearts with which to reason.) []

Here, an important hypothesis emerges within the “philosophy of creation”:

Perhaps human knowledge rests neither on the intellect alone, nor on the senses alone, nor on the heart alone, but on the integration of these capacities.

The human being sees, then perceives.

Asks, then examines.

Reflects, then reasons.

Engages in Tadbur, then discerns.

Seeks proof, then knows.

From here, we can read the trajectory:

Perception → questioning → examination → reflection → reasoning → Tadbur → insight → proof → knowledge.

This is not a sequence that the Qur'an presents verbatim in this form, but an attempt to synthesize the network of Qur'anic concepts into a single epistemic system.

Sight and Insight

God says:

﴿فَإِنَّهَا لَا تَعْمَى الْأَبْصَارُ وَلَٰكِنْ تَعْمَى الْقُلُوبُ الَّتِي فِي الصُّدُورِ﴾ (For it is not the eyes that become blind, but the hearts within the breasts that become blind.) []

A person may see something without discerning its meaning.

They may possess information without arriving at its truth.

They may employ the intellect in calculation and inference without attaining insight.

From here, I propose a hypothesis:

Sight may be a perception of the phenomenon, whereas insight may be a deeper capacity to perceive its significance.

Then another verse opens the field more broadly:

﴿سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ﴾ (We shall show them Our signs on the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth.) []

The human being learns from the horizons and learns from the self.

The external and the internal.

The material and the immaterial.

Creation and the human being.

Discernment arises from the interaction of these levels.

Here, knowledge draws close to the innate disposition.

The Innate Disposition: The Original Constitution That Can Be Targeted

God says:

﴿فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا ۚ لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ﴾ (The innate disposition of God upon which He created people; there is no altering God's creation.) []

Here, an important point emerges in the hypothesis of “changing God's creation.”

If the innate disposition is connected to God's creation, the question becomes:

Could changing God's creation extend beyond changing the body and its form?

Could it encompass changing the human being's innate disposition, function, relationship with creation, and the way their faculties of perception operate?

I do not propose this as a definitive definition of the verse, but as a question that opens a new field of inquiry.

A person may retain their intellect, heart, and senses, but if the relationship among them is dismantled, each part may remain present while the function of the entire system changes.

Here, we arrive at the central idea.

Changing God's Creation: The Reverse Process

Iblis says:

﴿وَلَآمُرَنَّهُمْ فَلَيُغَيِّرُنَّ خَلْقَ اللَّهِ﴾ (And I shall command them, and they will surely change God's creation.) []

The question here is not only:

What is it that will change?

But rather: how can the change occur?

If creation rests on construction, integration, relationships, and functions, then the reverse process may—within the framework of this hypothesis—rest on:

Dismantling → separation → corruption of the relationship → alteration of function → disruption of integration.

Here, “changing God's creation” becomes a concept broader than merely changing the human form.

The cosmos itself rests on relationships:

Sky and earth, sun and moon, night and day, water and plants, the human being and animals, the human being and the earth.

The human being likewise rests on internal relationships:

The senses, perception, intellect, heart, reflection, Tadbur, insight, and choice.

Thus, the reverse process of creation may consist in corrupting what was integrated.

The Human Being as a Microcosm

If we take the human being as a model, the system to which we have referred may be:

The senses → perception → questioning → intellect → reflection → heart → Tadbur → insight → proof → knowledge → choice → responsibility → purpose.

The reverse process may work to dismantle this sequence:

Embellishment → confusion → weakening questioning → separating reason from the heart → separating knowledge from insight → disabling discernment → following conjecture → weakening choice.

Here, Iblis does not need to abolish human reason.

It is enough to separate reason from the heart.

Nor does he need to prevent human beings from acquiring knowledge.

It is enough to separate knowledge from insight.

Nor does he need to abolish choice.

It is enough to influence the premises of choice.

This makes leading astray something deeper than a mere passing whisper.

Reason and the Heart: Not Adversaries

From this perspective, I do not see the Qur'an as setting reason and the heart in opposition.

Rather, its statement:

﴿فَتَكُونَ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ يَعْقِلُونَ بِهَا﴾ (so that they may have hearts with which to reason) []

opens a different door.

Human beings do not need to choose between a reason that “thinks” and a heart that “feels.”

Rather, the question can be:

How do reason and the heart operate within a single epistemic system?

When separation occurs, a person may emerge who:

knows without discerning,

sees without perceiving,

thinks without engaging in Tadbur,

and possesses information without arriving at meaning.

Here, separation itself becomes one of the instruments of change.

Knowledge That Leads to Awe

God says:

﴿إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمَاءُ﴾ (Only those of His servants who possess knowledge stand in awe of God.) []

This verse is very important in constructing the “philosophy of creation.”

Knowledge here does not appear as a mere accumulation of information.

There is a relationship between knowledge and awe.

From this perspective, the following trajectory can be proposed:

Examination → knowledge → discernment → knowledge of truth → awe.

Human beings do not stand in awe of what they do not truly know.

Complete knowledge may be that which moves human beings from merely possessing information to knowing the truth that leads them to awe.

In this sense, knowledge of the Creator does not necessarily come from disabling questioning; it can instead come from completing the journey of questioning.

This brings us back to the definition of philosophy.

Philosophy Is Not Opposed to Faith

If philosophy is:

The human journey toward understanding one's existence within creation; it begins with questioning, proceeds through perception, examination, reflection, reasoning, Tadbur, and the pursuit of proof, and seeks knowledge, truth, choice, responsibility, and purpose,

then it is not logical to make questioning itself an accusation.

Nor is it logical to use the word “philosophy” as though it were a religious insult.

Philosophy does not tell human beings what to believe.

It asks them:

Why do you believe?

How did you come to know?

What is your evidence?

Is what you have inherited what you arrived at through inquiry, or what you were told was the truth?

Here, philosophy becomes an instrument for examining knowledge, not an enemy of faith.

Indeed, faith that withstands questioning may be deeper than faith whose adherent was never permitted to question in the first place.

For this reason, turning philosophy into a “bogeyman” that people fear may itself disable one of the most important acts human beings need on their journey within creation:

Questioning.

From Questioning to Authority

Here we arrive at another point.

If human beings are capable of questioning, investigating, and seeking proof, then any authority seeking to monopolize truth will face a problem.

An authority that says:

Investigate, examine, and reflect, then bring what you have arrived at

is radically different from an authority that says:

This is the truth, and do not ask why.

From this perspective, religious knowledge can turn into authority when its exegesis (tafsīr) becomes monopolized, and the person undertaking that exegesis (tafsīr) changes from a seeker of truth into an owner of truth.

This monopoly grows stronger when religious authority becomes intertwined with political authority.

Religious authority can regulate consciousness and exegesis (tafsīr).

Political authority can regulate conduct and action.

When the two authorities cooperate, a highly influential system can take shape:

The religious authority determines what human beings ought to believe, and the political authority determines what they ought to do.

Here, human beings no longer need to be forcibly prevented from questioning.

It is enough for them to be brought up to regard questioning itself as a departure from the fold.

Where Does the Allotted Share Come In?

Here we arrive at the “allotted share.”

The allotted share is not the title of this philosophy.

Nor is it the entirety of “changing God's creation.”

Rather, according to this hypothesis, it is part of a broader mission.

The broader objective is:

Changing God's creation.

The allotted share may be a portion of, or an assignment within, this process.

The instruments, however, are multiple:

Leading astray, wishful thinking, embellishment, commanding, confusion, dismantling, separation, and exerting influence upon human beings.

From this perspective, the following sequence can be envisaged:

Iblis → the allotted share → instruments of influence → human beings → authority, knowledge, and conduct → disabling questioning and integration → changing creation.

But this final stage requires an independent historical study when we move from the Qur'anic model to the history of religious and political authority.

The Qur'an provides us with the basic concepts, but establishing how this mechanism appeared in history requires the study of cases, periods, individuals, and institutions, not mere supposition.

The Reverse Process of Creation

The picture thus becomes more expansive.

Creation:

Bringing into existence → organization → integration → function → life → perception → choice → civilization.

By contrast, according to the hypothesis of “changing God's creation”:

Change → dismantling → separation → corruption of function → disabling integration → confusing perception → influencing choice → changing reality.

At the human level:

Reason + heart + senses + Tadbur + insight

can turn into:

Separated reason + separated heart + separated knowledge + separated insight + influenced choice.

This means that changing God's creation may begin not only with the body, but with the human function within creation.

A human being created to question, engage in Tadbur, choose, and bear responsibility can turn into a human being who receives without questioning, obeys without understanding, knows without discerning, and moves within a system made for them without reexamining it.

Here, change will have struck at the core of the human function.

Conclusion: The Philosophy of Creation in the Face of the Philosophy of Change

If philosophy in this study is:

The human journey toward understanding one's existence within creation,

then the “philosophy of creation” becomes an attempt to understand the human being as a being who knows within creation, whose perception becomes integrated, and who then chooses and bears responsibility.

By contrast, we can study “changing God's creation” as a hypothesis concerning a reverse process that seeks to dismantle what has become integrated, separate what has become connected, alter functions, and influence human beings until they become part of the process of change itself.

From here, the “allotted share” becomes a link within this process, not the center of the philosophy.

In this reading, religious and political authority is not itself the source of the problem; rather, the problem arises when authority becomes a monopoly on truth, then uses this monopoly to foreclose questioning and control choice.

Here, philosophy returns to its natural place.

It is not a bogeyman.

Nor is it a new religion.

Nor is it a call to reject faith.

It is simply:

The human journey toward understanding one's existence within creation.

And questioning is not the enemy of truth.

Questioning is the path by which a person tests what they believe to be true.

Thus, perhaps the gravest thing that can happen to a person is not to err after inquiry, but to be prevented from inquiring in the first place.

For those who inquire can reassess their errors.

But those for whom questioning is foreclosed may no longer possess the means to discover that they have erred.